Why an absent seller can delay a licence transfer

QWe are concerned as the transfer of the licence for the pub we have bought has been delayed by the clerk because he says we have not notified the outgoing licensee. But we were told that the seller has gone to live abroad. What can we do at this late stage?

AIt is a legal requirement that the clerk to the justices receives evidence that notice of the transfer has been served on the outgoing licensee.

There is a perfectly good reason for this. The seller is still licensed up to the time the transfer is granted, and clearly it would be unfair if a transfer could be done "by stealth", without the knowledge of the person holding the licence.

Although the majority of transfers are carried out with the full knowledge and consent of the existing licensee, there will be times when, due to a dispute of some kind, the outgoing tenant or manager is not keen. Where he has given up running the business, of course, he cannot resist the transfer but there may be certain situations where a transfer could be granted improperly to a person with no real right to take over.

What the justices need to know is that the transfer is not opposed by the outgoing licensee. These days, they do not require him to turn up at the sessions (as they used to do) but they do insist on compliance with the Licensing Act, so that proof of service of the notice is required.

You may send the notice to the last known address of the person concerned or to his legal representative and produce some form of evidence (a certificate of service, recorded delivery, a sworn statement or evidence on oath) that you have done this properly. It is, incidentally, something your solicitor or agent should have done, or advised you on, if they were handling the transfer on your behalf.

Restaurant drinks and the new licensing laws

QWith the coming changes to the law, I would like to know whether a restaurant licence can be validly restricted to limited classes of drinks, for example wine only, or must it be granted for all liquors, as long as only persons taking meals may be served. Would that carry over to the new system?

AA restaurant licence is in fact a justices' on-licence granted subject to the conditions found in Part IV of the Licensing Act 1964. But a limitation on the types of liquor that may be sold under the licence is not usually a condition as such. It is merely a form of justices' licence falling within the definitions contained in section 1 of the Act.

It seems therefore that any licence may be granted for limited classes of liquor, as long as it complies with the types specified in section 1. It is not open to the justices to "create" a special limited form of licence by using conditions as to types of liquor.

It must be said that as long as the premises meet the obligations described in Part IV and the applicant is found to be a fit and proper person, the justices have limited discretion and will normally grant the licence. Limiting the type of drink is very unusual, although it has been done in the past.

According to subsection 5 of section 93 of the Act, nothing in section 4 of the Act (which prevents the justices adding conditions to a wine-only licence) will act to prevent such a licence being granted as a restaurant licence, and it is clear that other limited forms of licence, such as "beer, cider and wine only" could be granted in this form as well.

The new system does not have categories of licences, but any restrictions currently in force would be carried over unless a variation to remove them was applied for.