SCOTTISH LICENSING
WRITTEN REASONS IN SCOTTISH LICENSING DECISIONS: WHAT KINNEAR REQUIRES
By Eddie Grice, Scottish Civic Licensing Agent
www.licencerep.co.uk and Chairman Scottish PH Association
www.spha.scot
Anyone who has spent time before a licensing committee will know that a hearing can cover a considerable amount of ground. Evidence
is
discussed, questions are asked, submissions are made and councillors may express different views before reaching their decision. But once the meeting is over, one part of that process becomes particularly important, which is the reasons the authority gives for the decision it has actually made.
For those representing licence holders, that is not simply an administrative formality. Under Schedule 1 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, written reasons can become central to any subsequent appeal to the Sheriff Court. They tell the licence holder what decision has been made and why, then provide the starting point for the court when examining that decision. That makes the quality of those reasons important so that the person whose licence is being suspended, revoked or refused is able to understand the basis on which that decision was reached.
The statutory framework
Paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 of the ‘82 Act provides a mechanism for requiring written reasons for certain licensing decisions. Paragraph 18 then provides the statutory appeal route to the Sheriff Court.
The legislation therefore creates important links between the committee’s decision, the reasons given for it and any appeal that follows.
The case law has developed alongside that statutory framework. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that a decision-maker must give proper and adequate reasons which leave an informed reader and the court in no real and substantial doubt as to why the decision was made and what material considerations were taken into account.
That principle comes from the well-known case of Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland (1984). Although Wordie was not a licensing
20
case, its formulation has subsequently been applied across Scottish administrative law, including licensing decisions and, importantly for our purposes, decisions under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
However, it is worth being clear about what this actually requires. A licensing committee is not expected to write a judicial judgment. It does not have to address every piece of evidence or explain every question discussed during a hearing.
In Ritchie v Aberdeen City Council (2011), the court explained that the decision-maker does not need to engage in an elaborate evaluation of every point raised. The reasons must, however,
identify the
material considerations, evaluate them clearly and concisely, and set out the essence of the reasoning which led to the decision.
That distinction matters. The reasons don’t need to be lengthy, but they need to actually explain the decision.
Kinnear and the reasons given at the time
This brings us to Midlothian District Council v Kinnear, an Inner House decision from 1992. Kinnear was the holder of a taxi driver’s licence. His licence was suspended after the authority concluded that he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold it. The written notification of the decision stated that the suspension was imposed on account of his previous convictions.
When the matter reached the Sheriff Court on appeal, however, the licensing authority sought to rely on other matters which had been discussed at the committee hearing. These included matters concerning the appellant’s ownership of a dog and his conduct before the hearing. The Inner House rejected that approach.
The significance of Kinnear is not that a licensing authority can never refer to anything which was discussed during a hearing. It is that the authority must be able to stand behind the reasons it actually gave for its decision. Kinnear was entitled to assume that the written notification contained the reasons for the decision and the council could not subsequently seek to supplement those reasons in order to defend the decision on appeal.
That principle has practical importance as a licence holder needs to know what decision they
NOVEMBER 2026 PHTM are
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82
