header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll