Southampton defeats judicial review challenge to grant of casino licence

Southampton City Council has successfully defended a High Court challenge by a gaming business over the authority’s decision to grant a casino licence to a rival company.

The case of Global Gaming Ventures (Southampton) Ltd v Southampton City Council [2017] EWHC 165 (Admin) concerned the outcome of Southampton’s large casino competition.

Seven applications were originally made for the grant of a provisional statement, all of which successfully completed the first stage. Five related to the Royal Pier development (including the winner’s), one to a site on West Quay Road and another (the claimant’s application) to a site at Watermark West Quay. In due course three of the Royal Pier applications were abandoned.

An advisory panel of independent experts prepared reports, and the council’s licensing committee subsequently resolved to grant Aspers Universal’s application.

Global Gaming Ventures brought a judicial review challenge on the following grounds:

• The defendant council was not entitled to determine that the siting of a large casino at the Royal Pier site was necessary to the realisation of the wider aspects of the Royal Pier development. The council was also not entitled to determine that the wider aspects of that development would be likely to be delivered. (Ground 1)
• The city council was restricted to a consideration of a monetary assessment of the GVAs (Gross Value Added) relating to the factors identified within the Evaluation Criteria & Scoring Matrix, and it failed to do so.

Mr Justice Jeremy Baker rejected the claim. He said: “In the circumstances, and for the reasons I have sought to explain, I do not consider that either of the matters relied upon by the claimant give rise to an arguable ground upon which to judicially review the defendant's decisions, either to grant a provisional statement to the interested party in respect of a large casino, or to refuse to grant such a statement to the claimant.

“Accordingly, I refuse the renewed application for permission in relation to ground 1, and refuse the adjourned application for permission in relation to ground 3.”

Philip Kolvin QC of Cornerstone Barristers appeared for Southampton, instructed by the council's legal department.