Unfortunately the two in a bar rule HAS been tested in court.

Not very often on this aspect. And I am advised by the author of the standard text book on the subject of entertainment licensing law - that there is no case-law that has legally determined the definition of the word 'performer'. And as the legislation itself does not define the word - the local Licensing Authority is in fact free to use a broad catch-all definition (that prevents unpaid customers from making their own music) or a narrow one (which would permit this). It is a matter of local council policy.

It was a judges decision that established the precedent that it means two performers in any session, and not a series of pairs one after another.

Toye -v- Southwark (on appeal) did not establish this. This was not the issue at question in the case. One of the judges expressed his personal opinion and argued that Parliament's intention was - that in order for the entertainment to be exempt under S 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 - it would have to be the same two 'performers' all night.

But even if this had been established by this case (which it has not) the issue would still be the question of who is counted as (more than two) 'performers'. This will remain the case - until November 2005.