Sham - B-v-M was a case against the licensee for providing etc. Held - he only provided a piano, not the performance.

So it is possibly not authority that there was no performance, only that he didn't provide it ) which, of course, is a decision of fact, not law.

It may very well be the reason the new law makes the provision of facilities licensable (and of course criminalises the musos (with some exceptions) as well as the landlord) .

Sorry to be a wet blanket.

I've given JB a copy of it and he will no doubt return with his thoughts when he has digested it.