The High Court has dismissed a challenge to a licensing authority\u2019s use of remote hearings.<\/p>\n
Since 2020, the use of video conferencing technology to hold licensing hearings has become widespread. <\/span>Walk Safe Security Services Ltd v London Borough of Lewisham<\/em> <\/span>[2024] EWHC 1787 (Admin)<\/a> was the first case to reach the High Court in which the lawfulness of that practice was challenged. <\/span><\/p>\n Challenge to remote hearing procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n The Appellant \u2013 the owner of South London nightclub, Silks \u2013 held a premises licence which was revoked in late 2022, following an application for summary review by the Metropolitan Police. <\/span><\/p>\n As it had done consistently since the onset of the pandemic, the hearing before the London Borough of Lewisham\u2019s Licensing Committee took place remotely, using Microsoft Teams.<\/p>\n The Appellant appealed against the revocation. Among its grounds of appeal was a challenge to the use of a remote hearing procedure. <\/span><\/p>\n That issue was considered as a preliminary issue by DJ Abdel Sayed sitting at Bromley Magistrates\u2019 Court, who ruled that <\/span>remote hearings were permitted under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Licensing Act (Hearings) Regulations 2005.<\/p>\n The Appellant appealed against the District Judge\u2019s ruling to the High Court. The appeal was heard by Chamberlain J in May 2024.<\/p>\n Remote hearings are lawful<\/strong><\/p>\n In dismissing the appeal, the judge held that remote hearings are lawful:<\/p>\n What does it mean for licensing authorities?<\/strong><\/p>\n The ruling means that all licensing authorities in England and Wales are authorised to hold licensing hearings remotely \u2013 either fully remotely or a hybrid procedure (with some participants attending a physical location and others joining through video conferencing technology).<\/p>\n Although the judgment clearly establishes the principle that remote hearings are lawful, it contains only limited guidance on the practicalities of holding a remote hearing. What is clear, however, from the court\u2019s reference to procedural fairness, is that authorities should have a written protocol, setting out:<\/p>\n Matt Lewin, a member of Cornerstone Barristers\u2019 Licensing Team, represented the London Borough of Lewisham in the High Court and the magistrates\u2019 court, having acted as legal adviser to the Licensing Committee. <\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n