The Inspection Report That Spoke for the Owner
On 8 February at 01:20 officers from the district police station conduct a joint inspection of a bar in a university district together with officials from the district office. Inside they find three customers aged 17 and 18 with glasses of beer on the table. The owner, E, 47, says the doorman checked all three IDs at the door and that the cards looked genuine. The officers do not seize the IDs and do not record what the doorman said.
The inspection report states that the 'owner admitted knowingly serving minors', a sentence E says she never uttered and which appears in no statement she signed. On 20 February the chief of police sends the district office a 'recommendation for administrative disposition', citing that report. On 6 March the district office suspends E's licence for 60 days, effective 15 March. It holds no hearing. The notice states only the statutory article and the 60-day figure, with no reasons. The bar is E's only income and she employs four staff.
1. E wants to challenge the outcome. Identify which acts are administrative dispositions, who the proper defendant is for each, and what follows for the shape of her claim.
Read the worked answer
The police recommendation is not a disposition. It is an internal or inter-agency opinion that does not itself alter E's legal position; its effect depends on the district office deciding to act. A suit against the chief of police would therefore fail on the ground that no disposition exists, regardless of how damaging the report is. The recommendation may still matter as evidence, and as a target for a request that the underlying factual error be corrected, but not as the object of an annulment claim.
The suspension is a disposition. It removes a licence, closes the business and directly affects rights; it is the act to be annulled. The proper defendant is the district office, not the police.
Practical consequence. The claim should be framed as annulment of the suspension plus a suspension of execution, with the police report attacked as a defective evidentiary foundation rather than as a separate act. If E has already suffered harm from the recommendation itself, that is a damages issue, not an annulment issue, and it requires proof of fault and loss.
Check the chain before filing. Confirm the statutory basis cited, whether the district office conducted any independent fact-finding or simply adopted the police report, and whether a separate penalty (a fine or a business-closure order) was issued alongside. If the district office did nothing but rubber-stamp another agency's report, that is itself an argument about the exercise of its own discretion.
2. Assess the legality of the 60-day suspension: the factual basis, the discretion involved, and proportionality.
Read the worked answer
Factual basis. The only evidence of knowledge is a sentence in an inspection report that E denies and never signed. Against it stands the unchallenged account that a doorman checked IDs that appeared genuine, and the officers' failure to seize the cards or record the doorman. Serving a minor is the operative fact, but knowing service is what aggravates it; the record does not establish knowledge, only that minors were present with beer. A disposition resting on a mistaken or unsupported fact is unlawful, and the authority cannot rely on the report's conclusion while the primary record is silent.
Discretion. Licence suspension is a discretionary power: the authority must weigh the statutory factors, the gravity of the violation, the degree of fault, the risk of recurrence, and the effect on the licensee. A reasoned exercise requires it to say which of these it considered. Adopting another agency's conclusion without independent assessment is not an exercise of discretion at all.
Proportionality. Sixty days for a first offence, with no prior record mentioned, on a contested knowledge element, in a business employing four staff, is on its face severe. The authority must explain why a shorter suspension, a fine, or a warning would not have achieved the public interest. The comparison with the penalty imposed on comparable establishments in the same district is also relevant and should be requested.
Conclusion: the factual foundation is defective, the discretion was not genuinely exercised, and the sanction is disproportionate; annulment should succeed on any of the three.
3. The district office held no hearing and gave no reasons. Explain the significance of each defect and whether either can be cured.
Read the worked answer
The hearing. Revoking or suspending a licence is a measure that deprives a person of an existing right and requires a prior hearing where the statute provides for one. The purpose is to let the licensee see the case against her and answer it, which matters here because E could have produced the doorman, the ID records and the absence of any signed admission. The failure to hold a hearing is a serious procedural defect, and courts do not lightly excuse it. The narrow exception is where it is beyond doubt that a hearing could not have changed the outcome; that is not established here, where the only disputed question is precisely what E knew.
The reasons. A notice that states only an article and a number of days does not allow the affected person to know what was found against her or to decide whether to challenge it. The duty to give reasons serves both the individual and the reviewing court: without it, the court cannot test whether discretion was exercised on relevant grounds, and the licensee cannot know what to rebut. The absence of reasons here is particularly damaging because the decision appears to rest entirely on a single contested sentence in another agency's report.
Cure. Procedural defects can be cured only before or at the point of decision, not retroactively by explaining the decision in litigation. A later statement of reasons written for the court file does not substitute for the reasons that should have accompanied the act, though it may help the authority's credibility on the facts.
Practical order of argument: procedural defects first, then factual error, then proportionality. Also ask for suspension of execution so the bar stays open while the case proceeds.