Garden centre convicted for opening part of premises for trading on Easter Sunday – Sunday Trading Act 1994 – Whole of premises amounting to “large shop” not entitled to open on Easter Sunday – Whether “large shop” to be assessed by reference to part opened on Easter Sunday or part normally open – Appeal dismissed
The appellant was the occupier of premises known as Haskins Garden Centre, Longham, Ferndown, Dorset, which traded as a garden centre. The premises comprised modern purpose built accommodation made up of a large central roofed building to which was attached a lean-to, beyond which were open areas within the curtilage as a whole. The floor area of the large central building, which was the main sales area, was 3,000-3,500 sq m. The lean-to and open areas were generally used for the sale of smaller items. Pursuant to para 4 of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 the appellant served a notice which permitted it to open the whole of the premises as a “large shop” on Sunday for a continuous period of six hours, but not, inter alia, on Easter Sunday.
Para 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act defined “large shop” as “a shop which has relevant floor area exceeding 280 square metres”, “relevant floor area” as “the internal floor area of so much of the shop as consists of or is comprised in a building, but excluding any part of the shop which, throughout the week ending with the Sunday in question, is used neither for the serving of customers in connection with the sale of goods nor for the display of goods”, and “shop” as “any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods”.
On April 7 1996, an Easter Sunday, the appellant opened its premises. On that day the large central building was closed off and only the lean-to area was open for the serving of retail customers and for the sale of goods. The appellant was convicted by the magistrates court of an offence for opening the shop contrary to paras 2(1) and 7(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act. The Crown Court dismissed the appeal, but varied the sentence from a conditional discharge to an absolute discharge. The appellant appealed to the High Court by way of case stated. The issue was whether the premises as used by the appellant on the Easter Sunday concerned constituted a “large shop” and was therefore open contrary to Schedule 1 to the Act, notwithstanding that the large central building had been closed and that only the lean-to area, which did not exceed 280 sq m, had been open.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
“Large shop” properly described a premises, even when closed, where there was the serving of customers in connection with the sale of goods or where there was the display of goods. Although the definition of “large shop” and “relevant floor area” were in the present tense, the issue of whether a premises was a “large shop” was to be assessed in the light of the situation which had continued for a period of time, and was not to be assessed only at the time it was open and when a potential breach had occurred. Therefore the question of whether the appellant’s premises were a “large shop” was not to be assessed by reference to the area open on the Easter Sunday, but was to be assessed as the area which was usually open. Accordingly, the premises were a “large shop”, which the appellant had opened contrary to paras 2(1) and 7(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act.
Geoffrey Stephenson (instructed by Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar) appeared for the appellant; Martin Strutt (instructed by the solicitor to East Dorset District Council) appeared for the respondents.
