Court suspends TEATT’s midnight curfew for District 721, thin evidence, excessive penalty

GREAT BAY--The court has suspended the Minister of TEATT’s attempt to cut nightlife hours at District 721 and to revoke its entertainment permission, ruling that the decision leaned on shaky warnings, vague complaints, and an enforcement path that did not follow the sanction ladder in the island’s Residential Economic Policy (REP).

Docta Catering N.V., operator of District 721 on Welfare Road, holds a restaurant A-license with article-52 permission to host music, shows and dancing. The license caps sound at 96 dB inside and 75 dB at the property boundary, and sets closing hours at 3:00 a.m. from Wednesday to Saturday, and 1:00 a.m. from Sunday to Tuesday. On 20 October the Minister withdrew the article-52 permission and imposed a uniform midnight closure, citing repeated violations, complaints, warnings and police advice. Docta appealed and sought interim relief.

The Court accepted Docta’s urgent interest. Most of the venue’s income is earned after midnight, so cutting hours would inflict immediate and irreparable harm, from lost revenue and artist fees to reputational damage with booked DJs, suppliers and staff.

The substance provided by 721 proved decisive. The Court could not find proof of closing-time violations in the record. On noise, the paper trail showed one formal warning dated 7 May 2025, not several, and even that warning was not reliable as written. The Inspectorate had told Docta on 24 April that no breach of the 75 dB boundary norm had been confirmed to date. The 7 May letter then cited a reading of 81.5 dBA measured two days earlier at the entrance, not at the boundary, and it expressly stated there were no violations on 2 May. Later, the Minister argued that the real violation occurred on 2 May, which contradicted the warning’s own text and raised doubts about its validity.

A September notification listed monitoring on the night of 23 to 24 August. It recorded a single exceedance of 78 dB(A) at a nearby home and several peaks above 80 dBC. The Court noted that the license and policy documents speak in dB or dB(A), not dBC, and that one additional exceedance was measured in a nearby commercial building on 6 to 7 September. The police advice was general and offered little concrete support.

Only on the eve of the hearing did the Minister submit a tally showing four to five complainants, with two to three repeating. The Court stressed the character of Simpson Bay’s mixed zone, where commercial and residential uses coexist and where, under the REP, background music can be permitted up to 75–80 dB(A) and higher levels can be permitted for dance or live music, while license conditions still hold the boundary at 75 dB. Complaints are relevant for monitoring, yet without established violations they do not prove license breaches.

The REP calls for a stepped approach, at least two written warnings, then temporary closure or temporary withdrawal if breaches persist. Moving to full withdrawal of entertainment permission and a midnight curfew after a single written warning, whose accuracy was in doubt, did not align with policy and was disproportionate for a business configured around permitted events.

Balancing interests, the Court found the decision insufficiently reasoned and not one the Minister could reasonably make on the record presented. The judge granted interim relief, restored the article-52 permission, and reinstated the original closing hours until the appeal is decided. The Minister must pay Docta’s legal costs of Cg 1,400.

The ruling, however, does not give District 721 a blank check. The Court emphasized that Docta must comply with the 75 dB(A) boundary standard in the coming months and should ensure that readings at upper floors of neighboring residential and commercial buildings remain within the norm. The message to TEATT is procedural as much as substantive: document violations precisely, apply warnings as policy requires, and tailor sanctions that fit both the law and the evidence.

‍