18 July 2013 / Philip Kolvin KC

Issue: 7569 / Categories: Opinion , Commercial

printer

mail-detail

Illegal enforcement?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

rexfeatures_356675a

The Soho sex shop case highlights the need for an urgent review of the licensing fee regime, says Philip Kolvin QC

A case which started out as a squabble over licence fees for Soho sex shops has the potential to affect fees for licences and other authorisations for all manner of service activities. The issue came to the fore in the ground-breaking judgment of the Court of Appeal in R (Hemming) v Westminster City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 591.

Hemming

The background to Hemming was that sex shops were paying Westminster City Council £29,102 per year for a sex establishment licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The operators served freedom of information requests, replies to which revealed that the overwhelming bulk of their fees was being used to fund prosecutions of illegal operators.

After three years of litigation, the Court of Appeal, led by the Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, ruled that basing licence fees on such enforcement costs was illegal. It falls foul of the Services Directive

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Illegal enforcement?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

rexfeatures_356675a

The Soho sex shop case highlights the need for an urgent review of the licensing fee regime, says Philip Kolvin QC

A case which started out as a squabble over licence fees for Soho sex shops has the potential to affect fees for licences and other authorisations for all manner of service activities. The issue came to the fore in the ground-breaking judgment of the Court of Appeal in R (Hemming) v Westminster City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 591.

Hemming

The background to Hemming was that sex shops were paying Westminster City Council £29,102 per year for a sex establishment licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The operators served freedom of information requests, replies to which revealed that the overwhelming bulk of their fees was being used to fund prosecutions of illegal operators.

After three years of litigation, the Court of Appeal, led by the Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, ruled that basing licence fees on such enforcement costs was illegal. It falls foul of the Services Directive

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

back-to-top-scroll