[DIVISIONAL COURT]

Ex parte STOTT.

Certiorari - Licence for Cinematograph Exhibitions - Conditions of Licence - Objection to Conditions by Third Person - "Person aggrieved."

A licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, granted to a theatre proprietor a licence for the exhibition of cinematograph films at his theatre. The licence was subject to the condition that the licensee should not exhibit any film if he had notice that the licensing authority objected to it. A firm who had acquired the sole right of exhibition of a certain film in the district in which the theatre was situated entered into an agreement with the licensee for the exhibition of the film at his theatre. The licensing authority having given notice to the licensee that they objected to the exhibition of the film, the firm applied for a writ of certiorari to bring up the notice to be quashed on the ground that the condition attached to the licence was unreasonable and void, and that they were aggrieved by the notice as being destructive of their property:-

Held, that, whether the condition was unreasonable or not, the applicants were not persons who were aggrieved by the notice and were not entitled to apply for a certiorari.

APPLICATION for a writ of certiorari.

In May, 1915, Walter Stott and Frederick White, carrying on business as hirers of cinematograph films, acquired for the sum of 3000l. the sole right of letting out on hire for exhibition a cinematograph film known as "Five Nights" in the counties of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Derbyshire until December 31, 1924. Having so acquired that right they entered into an agreement with the proprietor of a cinematograph theatre in the town of St. Helens, known as the Hippodrome, to let the said film on hire for exhibition at that theatre for the week ending October 9 for the sum of 40l.

The justices of St. Helens, as delegates of the County Council of Lancashire, under s. 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 30), had granted to the proprietor of the Hippodrome a licence for cinematograph exhibitions on the premises subject to the following, amongst other, conditions: "No film shall be shown that is objectionable or indecent, or anything likely or tending to

educate the young in the wrong direction, or likely to produce riot, tumult or breach of the peace, and no offensive representations of living persons shall be shown. Provided also that no film shall be exhibited if notice that the justices object to such film has been given to the licensee."

The intended exhibition of the film "Five Nights" having been advertised, the justices met and viewed it and afterwards passed a resolution that the film was objectionable and likely to educate the young in the wrong direction, and instructed their clerk to give notice to the proprietor of the Hippodrome that they objected to the exhibition of the film. That notice having been given, the proprietor of the Hippodrome cancelled the arrangements for the exhibition. Application was then made on behalf of Messrs. Stott and White to the Divisional Court for a rule nisi for a writ of certiorari to bring up the justices' notice prohibiting the exhibition to be quashed.

T. G. R. Dehn, for the applicants. The condition attached to the theatre proprietor's licence was ultra vires the licensing authority. It was unreasonable in that it prohibited the exhibition not only of improper or offensive films, but also of any films to which the justices thought fit to object, whatever the ground of their objection might be. There was no provision in the condition for the persons interested in the particular film being heard before the justices arrived at their decision. Consequently the notice given by the justices for the purpose of enforcing the condition was given without jurisdiction. The effect of it was to make it a criminal offence to produce a film on the merits of which the owners had never been heard. Then if the notice was bad the applicants are sufficiently persons aggrieved by it to entitle them to apply for a certiorari. For the prohibition of the exhibition was destructive of their right of property. In Rex v. Groom (1), where justices at an adjourned general annual licensing meeting granted to an applicant a licence to sell intoxicating liquors, and certain brewers, who were trade rivals of the licensee, objected that the licence was granted without jurisdiction, it was held that the objectors, notwithstanding that they had no interest in the particular house in respect

(1) [1901] 2 K. B. 157.

of which the licence was granted, had a sufficient interest in the decision of the justices to enable them to apply for a certiorari.

AVORY J. The Cinematograph Act, 1909, by s. 2 authorizes the county council to grant licences for cinematograph exhibitions "on such terms and conditions and under such restrictions as subject to regulations of the Secretary of State the council may by the respective licences determine"; and by s. 5 authorizes the county council to delegate any of their powers under the Act to justices in petty sessions. Here the County Council of Lancashire had delegated to the justices of St. Helens their powers as the licensing authority under that Act, and the justices had granted a licence to the proprietor of the Hippodrome subject to the attached condition that "No film shall be shown that is objectionable or indecent, or anything likely or tending to educate the young in the wrong direction. Provided also that no film shall be exhibited if notice that the justices object to such film has been given to the licensee." The licensee accepted that licence with the condition, and he makes no complaint that it was ultra vires. But certain persons who are interested in the exhibition at that theatre of a particular film which has been objected to by the justices now ask for a certiorari calling on them to show cause why their notice of objection should not be quashed on the ground that the condition of the licence was too wide and therefore void. I may say that I think the last clause of the condition means that the justices may give notice of objection to a film where they have bona fide and in the judicial exercise of their discretion come to the conclusion that it is objectionable on one of the grounds mentioned in the previous part of the condition. If that is the true meaning of the condition the objection to it disappears. But, whether the condition is bad or not, and whether or not certiorari is applicable to such a notice, I think it is clear that the applicants are not persons who have sufficient interest in the licence to entitle them to apply for a rule. They are not in my opinion persons aggrieved by the notice.

ROWLATT J. I am of the same opinion. The mere fact that the justices' order prohibiting the exhibition deprived the applicants

of the benefit of the contract that they had made with the licensee did not give them a right to complain that the justices' order was bad.

Solicitor for applicants: H. V. Harraway, for March, Pearson & Akenhead, Manchester.

J. F. C.