Wolverhampton venue's licence suspended for serving after hours
A city centre club has had its licence suspended after being caught selling alcohol after hours.City of Wolverhampton Council took the action over De Fusion Bar and Restaurant in Exchange Street, Wolverhampton, with a two week suspension.It comes after the venue was found to have breached several conditions of its licence – including serving alcohol after hours.A licensing hearing heard an inspection ahead of a Wolves home game in January found the venue had not used door staff ahead of the game and was serving pints in glass rather than plastic glasses.
Staff were also not trained properly, there were no incident logs and "insufficient" records on maintenance checks and fire risk assessments, councillors heard.The venue also did not have drug safety notices nor could it provide CCTV within 24 hours.Owner Ikenna Orajaka told the hearing the venue had been struggling to attract customers for months and could not afford to hire door staff. He claimed, to prove his point, the club had received no customers during an hour-long visit by the council.Mr Orajaka said the venue would usually remain empty on Saturday afternoons but he would open the bar for just a single family on occasions. "It is an error on our part but we did it just for him," he said at the hearing, after councillor Jill Wildman told him "the rules applied to everyone."
'Serious' breaches
A supply of the wrong CCTV to the council was a "genuine mistake" according to Mr Orajaka – footage that nevertheless still proved that drinks had been served after hours. Mr Orajaka told the hearing: "Am I inexperienced? Yes. Have I made mistakes? Of course. Am I irresponsible? I am not."The bar owner's presentation "impressed" the committee, according to licensing chair, councillor Zee Russell.She had earlier said the venue was one of the "worst cases" she had heard, with Mr Orajaka telling councillors he had gone to great lengths to tackle the concerns raised in the inspection.Nevertheless, the committee ruled the breaches were of a "serious nature" to warrant a two-week suspension.The venue's closing time remained at 03:00 BST – with drinks allowed to be served until 02:30 BST - after Mr Orajaka pleaded for the committee to reconsider moving the club's closing time to 01:00 BST, saying the restriction would put him out of business.
This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service which covers councils and other public service organisations.
Follow BBC Wolverhampton & Black Country on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Revealed: The staggering amount of debt Gino D'Campo's restaurant empire racked up before going into administration in wake of lewd behaviour claims
Gino D'Campo's restaurant empire racked up debts of £7.3million before going into administration, MailOnline can reveal. The scandal-hit chef, 48, has seen his TV career implode following allegations of lewd and inappropriate behaviour on set, sparking job offers drying up with ITV - who once considered the Italian one of the broadcaster's most popular faces. And his restaurant group Upmarket Leisure, which had five restaurants bearing the star's name in London, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, has also hit hard times after going into administration in May. HMRC had sought to wind up the firm over the huge tax debt, but accountants negotiated a deal for the chain to be bought out for around £5 million. Two major creditors were paid a total of £4.2 million, which meant the restaurant could be sold and continue to run as a business meaning 400 employees' jobs were safe. But it also meant taxpayers HMRC and some big creditors, who supplied food and wine to eateries, were left out of pocket. An insider told Mailonline: 'It's a real mess and nobody has come out of this well. 'Gino was confident his business would get through this difficult period but like so many people in the hospitality business, it's been an incredibly tough time. 'His TV career bombing at the same time obviously hasn't helped.' One wine dealer Boutinot, is owed £302,000, food supplier Brake Brothers is down £460,000, LWC Drinks loses £280,000. But there are scores of other creditors owed significant amounts including Boulangerie de Paris, based in Uxbridge, who are owed £12,000, La Tua Pasta of London, owed £4,800 and Underwood Meat Company, also based in Uxbridge, owed £104,000. HMRC will get some money back, but administrators would only say 'there may be' funds 'for a distribution'. Gino, 48, has laid low after claims of inappropriate behaviour were lodged against him. He is reported to have been spending time in his native Italy and in Hertfordshire away from the limelight. His wife Jessica, the mother of his three kids, has stuck by the chef amid the controversy. The insider added: 'Gino is just getting his head down and removing himself from the limelight for now. 'He knows his fanbase is still strong, he's just biding his time. 'There are no indications he's willing to give up his TV career for good, particularly as he believes he's done nothing too untoward.' Earlier this year, an ITV investigation found there were multiple claims of 'unacceptable,' 'distressing' and 'horrendous' treatment while working with Gino over more than 12 years. It was also claimed ITV ignored complaints over the star's 'inappropriate' towards his colleagues, which included 'vile' and 'sexist' comments made towards Holly Willoughby in 2018. He told ITV News he 'firmly denied' all the allegations, which he called 'deeply upsetting'. ITV
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Telegraph
Diner wearing high heels wanted £100k after ‘slipping on chocolate truffle'
A high-heeled diner who claimed she slipped on a 'runaway truffle' while exiting a restaurant has lost her fight for £100,000 compensation. Rosina Malik, 62, twisted her ankle and broke her right wrist when she fell at Chapter One, a fine-dining restaurant in Farnborough Common, Kent. The fall happened after she stood to adjust her dress at the end of a three-course dinner with two friends. She blamed her accident on stepping on a 'runaway' caramel-filled chocolate truffle – which had been 'dropped but not retrieved' by a waiter during dessert. Mrs Malik sued the restaurant's owners, Simply Chapters Ltd, for up to £100,000 in damages. The restaurant denied liability and while not disputing that a truffle was dropped onto the floor, the restaurant's managers insisted Mrs Malik did not step on it before the accident. In a judgment at Central London county court this week, Judge Nigel Gerald ruled against Mrs Malik, finding that her right shoe had 'no contact' with the truffle. The 62-year-old told the court she was left 'in shock' after her fall, which left her with injuries to her ankle and wrist. The offending truffle was among a selection offered by the waiter which she and her friends decided to have boxed up. But the truffle fell from its dish while being transferred to the box, explained Mrs Malik, rolling off the edge of the table, where, she claimed, she subsequently trod on it, or its residue. The judge said that immediately after the accident everyone assumed the truffle was the culprit as it was found on the floor, while some of the chocolate remains were also on the sole of her shoe. A trawl through the restaurant's CCTV showed a more complex picture, the restaurant maintaining there was no point where Mrs Malik was in fact seen to stand on the caramel choc. Judge Gerald in his ruling said the traces of sticky caramel on her shoe probably ended up on the sole 'after the accident and before her shoes were removed'. Defence lawyers acting for the restaurant claimed Mrs Malik ended up on the floor after her right ankle 'inverted' and she tripped over, insisting that the 'runaway truffle' had nothing to do with the accident.
The Independent
4 days ago
- The Independent
Diner's £100k claim over ‘runaway truffle' after fall at Michelin-listed restaurant
A diner who blamed a "runaway truffle" after slipping in high heels while exiting a Michelin Guide -listed restaurant has lost her fight for £100,000 compensation. Rosina Malik, 62, twisted her ankle and broke her right wrist when she fell at fine dining restaurant Chapter One, in Farnborough Common, Kent, after she stood to adjust her dress at the end of a three-course dinner with two pals. She blamed her accident on having stepped on a "runaway" caramel-filled chocolate truffle, which had been 'dropped but not retrieved' by a waiter during dessert, as she got up from her chair. Mrs Malik, of Castlemaine Road, South Croydon, sued the restaurant's owners, Simply Chapters Ltd, for up to £100,000 in damages over the impact of the October 2020 accident. But the restaurant denied liability and while not disputing that a truffle was dropped onto the floor, the restaurant's managers insisted Mrs Malik did not step on it before the accident. In a judgment at Central London County Court this week, Judge Nigel Gerald ruled against Mrs Malik, crucially finding that her right shoe had 'no contact' with the truffle - and so dashing her hopes of securing compensation for her injuries. The 62-year-old told the court she was left 'in shock' after her fall, which left her with painful injuries to her ankle and wrist. The offending truffle was among a selection offered up by her table's waiter which she and her companions decided to have boxed up as they were already full from their dinner. But the wandering truffle fell from its dish while being transferred to the box, explained Mrs Malik, rolling off the edge of the table, where - she claimed - she subsequently trod on it, or its residue. Mrs Malik told the court in the witness box: 'I stood up and, as I stood up straight and tried to fix my dress, my feet started to slip and just gave way under me." She explained that when she got up from the table she assumed their waiter had already picked the truffle up from the floor and that it was no longer a 'risk'. 'If the waiter knew it was there, he should have brought it to my attention,' she told the judge. 'When I stood up, I assumed that whatever had been dropped had been picked up. I had no knowledge that something which had fallen was still on the floor when I stood up." The judge said that immediately after the accident all assumed that the truffle was the culprit as it was found on the floor, while some of the chocolate remains were also on the sole of Mrs Malik's shoe. But an exhaustive trawl through the restaurant's CCTV showed a more complex picture, with the restaurant maintaining there was no point where Mrs Malik was in fact seen to stand on the caramel choc. Her barrister, Simon Plaut, put her case on grounds that she either stepped on the truffle's 'viscous residue' after standing up from the table - or that she herself squashed the chocolate by standing on it while standing up. But defence lawyers claimed Mrs Malik ended up on the floor after her right ankle 'inverted' and she tripped over, insisting that what the restaurant's barrister, Juliet Stevenson, labelled the 'runaway truffle' was nothing to do with the accident. She sketched out multiple alternative possible reasons for Mrs Malik's loss of balance, including she having knocked back up to three glasses of wine, a 'somewhat slippery floor,' fatigue at the end of the day, and wearing high heels 'no matter how experienced the wearer'. But she also noted: 'The fact is that people do on occasion lose their balance without clear cause.' Judge Gerald in his ruling said the video footage did not show any contact between Mrs Malik's foot and the truffle, adding: 'Her toe appears to come close to the truffle, but it's quite clear that it doesn't in fact come so close or within contact, because not only does the truffle not move but it's shape does not change.' As for the traces of sticky caramel on her shoe, this probably ended up on the sole 'after the accident and before her shoes were removed,' the judge added. 'I find that the claimant didn't tread on the truffle before she fell and therefore she has been unable to establish the essential facts which she relied on and I dismiss her claim,' he concluded.
