BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/67 - Strawberry Farm Ltd [1999] UR 67 (14 April 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/67.html Cite as: [1999] UR 67 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ISLAND OF JERSEY
At the Assembly of Governor, Bailiff, and Jurats
14 April 1999
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and
Jurats Myles, Le Ruez, Potter, Quérée, Tibbo,
Bullen and Le Breton
Ex Parte Application by Jersey Strawberry Farm (1990) Limited, the holder of Restaurant, Off and Entertainment Licences, for an extension of the permitted hours of opening to allow its premises, The Living Legend, St. Peter, to remain open until 9.30pm., rather until the existing closing time of 6.30pm., during the months of July and August only (subject to the existing exemption in respect of private functions).
Advocate S Slater for the applicant Company;
Advocate R J F Pirie for Ronald William Green, Sudi Jane Chiang,
and Donald Lindsay Anderson;
The Constable of St. Peter on his own behalf;
Deputy R C Hacquoil on his own behalf;
Malcolm L’Amy on his own behalf
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: There is indeed a balance to be struck between the reasonable expectations of business enterprises and their neighbours, particularly where those enterprises are located in the countryside.
When assurances are given by a prospective licensee as to the conduct of his business and on the basis of those assurances a licence is granted, the Assembly will need substantial evidence of a change of circumstances before it will be prepared to change the conditions attached to the grant of that licence.
Furthermore, when an assurance of consultation is given and then ignored, there is not a promising foundation for an application of this kind.
We note that the Parish Assembly has not approved the application and, for our part, we have not been persuaded that any substantial case for change has been made out. The application is accordingly refused.
No Authorities
