A licensing application by Tesco for a new store in Douglas will be considered again by an appeal court, following a successful legal challenge by the owners of Shoprite.

In December 2015, the licensing court granted a provisional off-licence for a proposed Tesco Express in the former Manx Electricity Authority showroom at the Strand Shopping Centre.

Since then, the shopping centre has changed hands and is now owned by Sports Direct.

Shoprite owners Isle of Man Enterprises appealed against the licensing court’s decision and sought permission to bring new evidence at the appeal hearing.

The licensing court of appeal (LCA) refused to admit new evidence.

Shoprite’s parent company immediately obtained an adjournment of the appeal hearing and then lodged a petition of doleance to try to quash that decision and have its application heard by a differently constituted LCA.

The claimant argued that the LCA was wrong in law in refusing to allow new evidence.

And it questioned whether a perception of bias or unconscious bias arose from the fact that the chairman of the LCA sat on a number of the same tribunals as counsel for Tesco.

The LCA refused to state its case on that latter allegation, describing it as a ’frivolous’.

That prompted Shoprite’s owners to lodge a second petition of doleance which sought an order compelling the LCA to state its case.

At a hearing in November last year, Tesco’s advocate pointed out that as the shopping centre is under new ownership it was likely that further evidence would need to be placed before the LCA anyway.

Now in a judgment, Deemster Cain ruled that the LCA’s decision be quashed and remitted, as per Isle of Man Enterprise’s first doleance claim.

This was with the consent of the LCA and allowed the second doleance petition to be withdrawn.

The Deemster described this as a ’pragmatic course of action’.

And he stressed he was not criticising the LCA’s decision, or implying any error or defect in it, since he had not heard the arguments or submissions, especially in relation to the claim of perceived bias/unconscious bias.

He added: ’For the avoidance of any doubt, this judgment should not be taken as any form of finding that a risk of perceived bias/ unconscious bias may have arisen.’