header-logo header-logo

Sex establishment

08 May 2015
Issue: 7651 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Hemming (trading as Simply Pleasure Ltd) and others) v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 25, [2015] All ER (D) 226 (Apr)

The central issue in the proceedings was whether it was legitimate, under domestic and/or EU law, for the appellant licensing authority to charge refundable sums for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence. The Supreme Court held that it was legitimate under domestic law and, under EU law, where the sum was charged on the application having been successful. However, it referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union as to whether and when, under EU law, it was legitimate to do so at the time of the application, on the basis that it was refundable if the application was unsuccessful.

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll