Precedents

Liquor Commission decisions that have set precedents.

Decision Matter Precedent type Paragraph Precedent detail Decision file
LC01/2016 Redport Enterprises Pty Ltd (Cape Cellars, Busselton) ETP 84-89
84 However, the nature of the Cape Cellars store and its long standing and continuing strong focus on local wines and small and boutique local wine and beer producers, and the fact a not insignificant proportion of customers are likely to be visitors to the area, would be expected to mitigate this risk...
  • .pdf Redport Enterprises Pty Ltd (Cape Cellars, Busselton).pdf (97 KB)
  • LC01/2016 Cape Cellars Busselton (ETP) One Stop Shopping 74
    Equally, the ability to purchase liquor at the same time as groceries does not necessarily amount to “one-stop shopping” in the sense that the local members of the community may expect to be able to undertake much, or most, of their daily and weekly shopping in the one location.
  • .pdf Cape Cellars Busselton (ETP).pdf (97 KB)
  • LC01/2016 Redport Enterprises Pty Ltd (Cape Cellars, Busselton) ETP 77
    Additionally, whilst in normal circumstances a requirement to travel an extra distance of two to three kilometres to purchase liquor on a Sunday would not be considered by the Commission to be sufficient justification or reason to grant an ETP, in this case, the Commission is persuaded there are a number of other factors that support the grant of this particular application...
  • .pdf Redport Enterprises Pty Ltd (Cape Cellars, Busselton).pdf (97 KB)
  • LC01/2016 Cape Cellars Busselton (ETP) One Stop Shopping, Public Interest 73
    With respect to members of the local community, the Commission is of the view that the added convenience to local shoppers at the IGA supermarket and other retail outlets in the West Busselton Shopping Centre is not sufficient reason to grant the application. As the Commission has commented in other decisions (for example, Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police and Others LC18/2015), convenience, of itself, is not a basis upon which to grant an application which is required to satisfy the public interest. The public interest involves much broader considerations.
  • .pdf Cape Cellars Busselton (ETP).pdf (97 KB)
  • LC01/2016 Cape Cellars Busselton (ETP) Sunday Trading 76-77
    Whilst there is no direct evidence ...
  • .pdf Cape Cellars Busselton (ETP).pdf (97 KB)
  • LC01/2017 Carine Glades Tavern Evidence 26, 37, 38 and 40
    The Commission acknowledges the general principle that in the absence of expert evidence to the contrary it is not open for a decision maker to reach a contrary conclusion and accepts the submission made on behalf of the applicant as to the increase in volume of traffic. However, the effect that these additional vehicles will have on the amenity of the location is a matter for the Commission to evaluate based on all known factors......
  • .pdf Carine Glades Tavern.pdf (478 KB)
  • LC01/2017 Carine Glades Tavern Evidence 6
    As with all applications of this nature, the Commission has a voluminous amount of material before it that has been tendered by the various parties. The probative value of much of that evidence is questionable. There is a tendency on the part of some parties to include as much information as possible without giving any serious consideration as to how such evidence will assist the Commission in determining an application. However, all evidence tendered by the parties has been considered in the determination of this application. The failure to refer to specific evidence in these written reasons does not mean that the evidence has not been considered.
  • .pdf Carine Glades Tavern.pdf (478 KB)
  • LC01/2017 Carine Glades Tavern Proper Development of Industry 37-42
    The creation of a monopoly or duopoly in liquor retail such that it would crush competition offered by smaller outlets is a relevant consideration when determining the issue of public interest. A situation in which one or two retailers completely dominate the liquor market would not be in the public interest. However, there is no evidence before the Commission, either direct or circumstantial, from which the Commission could conclude that the granting of this application would have a crushing effect on other liquor outlets or that a point has been reached within the Perth metropolitan area that the two large liquor outlets (Dan Murphy’s and First Choice) so dominate the market that other retailers are unable to compete and as such a monopoly or duopoly has been created. There is no evidence before the Commission as to how previous grants of licences to the applicant has affected other liquor retailers. In the absence of such evidence, the Commission cannot conclude that the granting of this application would be contrary to the proper development of the liquor industry and not in the public interest.
  • .pdf Carine Glades Tavern.pdf (428 KB)
  • LC01/2017 Carine Glades Tavern Objectors 23
    Whilst the Commission will always carefully consider the genuinely held concerns of residential objectors, in this instance there is no evidence that is capable of establishing that the noise that will result from the granting of the application would be of such impact on the amenity of the locality in which the licensed premises are operated that it would not be in the public interest to grant the application.
  • .pdf Carine Glades Tavern.pdf (428 KB)
  • LC02/2011 Susan Leaver and Gregory Leaver v Director of Liquor Licensing ETP 26 During the hearing of this matter, it was submitted by the applicant that the wording of section 50 of the Act and the intention of parliament was that upon the grant of an ETP under section 60(4)(ca) the licensing authority may impose conditions on the ETP, but it was not contemplated that conditions would be imposed upon the restaurant licence. The Commission rejects this submission for the following reasons:

    Section 50(1) of the Act provides inter alia that, subject to this Act the licensee of a restaurant licence is authorised to sell and supply liquor for consumption on the premises ancillary to a meal (emphasis added); and
    Section 53(1) of the Act provides that the authorisation conferred by section 50 can be reduced on the grant of the licence [s 53(1)(a)] or subsequently, by further or other conditions imposed by the Director after giving the licensee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and to be heard [s 53(1)(b)] - (emphasis added).
     
    The enabling provisions to then impose conditions are contained in sections 63 and 64 of the Act. The general imposition of conditions on a licence or permit by the licensing authority to ensure that a licensee conducts the business under its licence in accordance with the tenor of its licence and permit and in a manner contemplated by the Act and is clearly reflected in the objects of the Act. The suggestion therefore that the licensing authority has no power to impose conditions is unsustainable as that would tantamount to subverting the intent of the legislation.
  • .pdf Susan Leaver and Gregory Leaver v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (204 KB)
  • LC02/2012 Woolworths Ltd v Tintoc Pty Ltd Frivolous and Vexatious 25
    ... It seems then that litigation may properly be regarded as vexatious for present purposes on either objective or subjective grounds. I believe the test may be expressed in the following terms (Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481, at 491): (i) Proceedings are vexatious if they are instituted with the intention of annoying or embarrassing the person against whom they are brought (ii) They are vexatious if they are brought for collateral purposes, and not for the purpose of having the court adjudicate on the issues to which they give rise. (iii) They are properly to be regarded as vexatious if, irrespective of the motive of the litigant, they are so obviously untenable or manifestly groundless as to be utterly hopeless.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Tintoc Pty Ltd.pdf (80 KB)
  • LC02/2017 BWS Northam One Stop Shopping 49
    The Commission recognises that one-stop shopping is a factor to be taken into account in the consideration of an application; however, there may be other factors that are given greater weight in the determination of an application of this nature.
  • .pdf BWS Northam.pdf (428 KB)
  • LC02/2017 BWS Northam Evidence 52(b)
    The granting of the application would increase the availability of liquor within the Northam community and would potentially result in the lowering of prices by licensees. As a specialist Tribunal, the Commission is entitled to draw an inference that there is a likelihood that such a scenario may occur, particularly where the granting of the licence would result in four retailers selling packaged liquor within a short distance of each other.
    LC03/2015 John Walter Luckman Fit and Proper 59
    A person’s conduct will be relevant to his or her fitness and propriety to carry on an occupation if, although the conduct did not occur in the ordinary course of carrying on that occupation, the conduct manifests the presence or absence of qualities which are incompatible with, or essential for, the carrying on of that occupation: Mavaddat v Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board [2009] WASCA 179 [73].
  • .pdf John Walter Luckman.pdf (207 KB)
  • LC04/2009 Ventorin Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Sunday Trading 7.5 The Second Reading Speech is silent on which certain circumstances would satisfy the test. Accordingly, the Commission has looked at the merits of the application and assessed it in accordance with the whole of the Act and in particular s5 (the objects) and s38 (the public interest test). However there is a clear intention of the legislature that a liquor store outside the metropolitan area must demonstrate good reasons why it can trade on Sunday.
  • .pdf Ventorin Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (620 KB)
  • LC04/2009 Ventorin Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Sunday Trading 6.1 The Applicant consistently argued (see APPLICANT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS, dated 23rd February, 2009, paragraphs 30, 32 and 39) that the Director's decision to grant a liquor store licence to the Applicant (Decision No. A190334) can be construed to mean the Director has assessed the operation of the liquor store positively against the 'objects' and 'public interest' tests for six days of the week and as Sunday is just another day then it follows that the Sunday application also satisfies these tests. This can not be correct and is indeed inconsistent with the Act itself. In Re Romato: Ex parte Mitchell James Holdings Pty Ltd (2001) WASCSA 286 McLure J at [38] said: ... the ETP provisions of the Act do not require the Director to treat Sunday in the same way as other days of the week. It is the Commission's view that the Director was correct in treating Sunday differently from the rest of the week and has exercised his discretion on that basis.
  • .pdf Ventorin Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (620 KB)
  • LC04/2014 Glen James McCormick v Commissioner of Police Fit and Proper 17 The objects of the Act clearly set out that the minimisation of harm is a primary objective of the legislation and protection of patrons in and around licensed premises is clearly a matter of public interest.
  • .pdf Glen James McCormick v Commissioner of Police.pdf (126 KB)
  • LC04/2015 Windrush Holdings Pty Ltd v Parkview Enterprises Pty Ltd & Others (Cellarbrations Duncraig) Public Interest 104-105
    These factors, together with a consideration of the demographic composition of the locality, the type, number and location of existing liquor stores and the demonstrated requirement of consumers for an independent liquor store of the type proposed will be, in the Commission’s view, a not insignificant benefit to the community.
  • .pdf Windrush Holdings Pty Ltd v Parkview Enterprises Pty Ltd & Others (Cellarbrations Duncraig).pdf (303 KB)
  • LC04/2015 Windrush Holdings Pty Ltd v Parkview Enterprises Pty Ltd & Others (Cellarbrations Duncraig) Public Interest 68
    Whilst the application would have been strengthened by an explanation of the methodology and sampling technique adopted by the licensee to conduct the consumer surveys, the Commission is sufficiently satisfied in the circumstances of this application, that there is a consumer requirement for the new store and the range of local WA liquor products, including low alcohol and dietary products to be stocked in the store.
  • .pdf Windrush Holdings Pty Ltd v Parkview Enterprises Pty Ltd & Others (Cellarbrations Duncraig).pdf (303 KB)
  • LC04/2016 Baytown Holdings Pty Ltd Public Interest 81-83
    The present application does not turn on any dispute between the applicant and the interveners and objectors as to the secondary objects of the Act. The main issue for determination is whether the applicant has established that there is a public interest in this application being granted...
  • .pdf Baytown Holdings Pty Ltd.pdf (397 KB)
  • LC05/2008 Kingplace Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments No Paragraph numbers, pages 2-3 The Director expressed the view that when read together, the paper interpretation to be applied to section 56, 57 and Regulation 10(a)(ii) is that the vineyard, if not already planted with mature vines, should have the imminent potential to yield sufficient produce upon the first vintage to become a genuine producer of liquor. The Commission agrees that the sections under reference and the regulation need to be considered together. However, section 57(a) states that for the grant of a producer's license an applicant must satisfy the licensing authority, ...that being a genuine producer of liquor, or a person who the Director is satisfied will become a genuine producer of liquor, the applicant produces or will produce liquor of the kind sought to be authorised for sale under the licence in a manner to which section 56 applies; The question for the Commission thus became quite simply as to whether sections 56 & 57 and the relevant regulation together imply that the potential for production of liquor in sufficient volume must be imminent within any reasonable definition of imminent or put another way, was the Director correct in inferring that the potential had to be immediate or imminent as section 57 does not specifically state so. In this regard the director accepted that the necessary statutory criteria and conditions precedent to the application being granted had been met but argued that the interpretation of regulation 10 when read with sections 56 and 57 at least implies (and does not state) an imminent ability to produce. The Commission held that in terms of section 57 and regulation 10 the potential to produce simply had to be real and demonstrable and not necessarily imminent and thus the conditions precedent for the issue of a Producer's licence had been met. The Commission makes no determination on the other grounds of the Application for Review as the matter had been determined on the first ground of the Application.
     
  • .pdf Kingplace Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (86 KB)
  • LC05/2010 Commissioner of Police v Bloo Moons Pty Ltd Classes of Licence 41 Many of the amendments to the Act enacted by Parliament over the years are no doubt in response to changing social norms and the expectations of the public for liquor and related services at licensed premises. Nonetheless, throughout various reviews and amendments to the Act, Parliament has deemed it appropriate to maintain a system based on the existence of specific types of licences, which authorises certain commercial activities in relation to liquor. This fundamental aspect of the Act would be rendered meaningless, if through the imposition of conditions on a licence of a particular class is distorted beyond all recognition.
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police v Bloo Moons Pty Ltd.pdf (311 KB)
  • LC06/2009 Spandau Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and another Sunday Trading 39 The Commission rejects the Applicant's arguments that Sunday in Kalgoorlie should be treated as any other day of the week due to the nature of shift work in the town, or, alternatively, that Kalgoorlie should be treated as a metropolitan town due to its size. Section 98D clearly states that only metropolitan liquor stores may trade on Sundays and we have no discretion to interpret its terms in the manner suggested by the applicant.
  • .pdf Spandau Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and another.pdf (833 KB)
  • LC06/2011 Director of Liquor Licensing v Mr Saran Singh Bajaj Fit and Proper 15 Although section 33(6) of the Act sets out the matters for consideration when determining whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, it can provide some guidance to the determination of a complaint under section 95. Also, there are many authorities concerning the meaning of 'fit and proper' which need not be discussed in detail here. Suffice to say that when deciding whether a person is 'fit and proper' to hold a licence, many factors may be considered including character and reputation (Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33), honesty (Simonsen v Rossi, the Registrar, Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board [2005] WADC 76) and previous convictions (Tavelli v Johnson, unreported, WADC Library No 960693, 25 November 1996). The purpose of the words 'fit and proper' is to give the decision maker the widest possible scope for judgement (Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales [No 2] [1955] HCA 28).
  • .pdf Director of Liquor Licensing v Mr Saran Singh Bajaj.pdf (70 KB)
  • LC06/2016 Ash Promotions Pty Ltd Northbridge 17-20
    those involved in the operation of the business have completed further courses in accordance with the interim conditions imposed by the Director, in order to overcome their inexperience and to better understand their obligations in conducting the business...
  • .pdf Ash Promotions Pty Ltd.pdf (89 KB)
  • LC06/2016 Ash promotions Pty Ltd (An Sibin Pub) Section 95 17-20
    The licensee’s premises are in a busy entertainment precinct. The evidence before the Commission establishes that those who operate the business are relatively inexperienced and have had a steep learning curve since the business commenced. It should be noted that those involved in the operation of the business have completed further courses in accordance with the interim conditions imposed by the Director, in order to overcome their inexperience and to better understand their obligations in conducting the business...
  • .pdf Ash promotions Pty Ltd (An Sibin Pub).pdf (89 KB)
  • LC06/2017 Liquorland Secret Harbour Specific Comments 56
    The Commission observes that there is no reference in the Act to ‘proliferation’, but rather the legislation specifically abolished the “needs test” in favour of the granting of a liquor licence being based on what is in the public interest. To apply a situation of ‘proliferation’ should this application be granted would be highly inconsistent with numerous instances all across the state of Western Australia where large shopping centres have competing liquor stores associated with major supermarkets.
  • .pdf Liquorland Secret Harbour.pdf (315 KB)
  • LC06/2017 Liquorland Secret Harbour One Stop Shopping 63
    Increased choice, competition and the convenience of one-stop shopping are all factors that contribute to the association between large supermarkets and their branded liquor stores in large shopping centres. As pointed out by the applicant, the convenience of one-stop shopping was referred to by Buzz JA in Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing [2013] WASCA 227 at (78):
  • .pdf Liquorland Secret Harbour.pdf (315 KB)
  • LC06/2017 Liquorland Secret Harbour Petitions 50 and 53
    In previous decisions, the Commission has expressed reservations about the weight that may be applied to surveys. This has been because, among other reasons, the outcome of surveys is dependent upon the method of selection and sampling of respondents, the objectivity of the surveys and petitions, the type of questions asked, and the geographical and demographic composition and nature of the locality.........53 No evidence has been presented to suggest that the consultants engaged by the applicant (DAA and Bodhi), are not objective or qualified to reach their conclusions and no expert evidence contrary of their findings has been presented. The Commission has no reason to doubt the integrity, good conscience or objectivity of the consultants engaged by the applicant.
  • .pdf Liquorland Secret Harbour.pdf (315 KB)
  • LC06/2017 Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Proper Development of Industry 61
    It is a notorious fact that large shopping centres of this nature (in this instance classified as a District Centre) generally contains competing liquor stores associated with the larger supermarket outlets (Cole, Woolworths, IGA and Aldi). There are enough examples of the juxtaposition of such liquor stores State-wide to evidence the fact that the licensing authority has recognised (subject to satisfying the public interest requirements) this trend as being in accordance with the proper development of the liquor industry.
  • .pdf Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (315 KB)
  • LC07/2010 O'Hanlons (WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others Northbridge 25 The evidence submitted by the EDPH is compelling and has not been refuted by the applicant. Consequently the Commission finds as a matter of fact that the locality of Northbridge experiences a significant level of alcohol-related harm. However, this conclusion does not in itself immediately lead to an outcome that the application should be refused. Each application must be considered on its merits (refer section 33(2) of the Act) and the licensing authority must weigh and balance all relevant considerations.
  • .pdf O'Hanlons (WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others.pdf (224 KB)
  • LC07/2017 Liquorland Gateway Specific Comments 24
    The function of the Commission in the context of an application pursuant to section 25 of the Act is to determine the application on a de novo basis and there is no requirement to find error in respect to the decision made at first instance. In the context of this application, the Commission has considered the evidence in support of the application and made its decision solely on an assessment of that evidence. However, the Commission has noticed a trend in decisions made at first instance to be based on irrelevant considerations and appellate decisions determined under previous legislation and has drawn attention to these errors, so that future applications will be determined properly according to the Act as it currently stands.
  • .pdf Liquorland Gateway.pdf (380 KB)
  • LC07/2017 Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Public Interest 22-23
    Accordingly, the Commission has not considered the issue of “need” in determining this application. The Commission does not consider that section 5(1)(c) of the Act imposes a positive onus on an applicant to establish that there is a need or requirement for the granting of the application. That section relates to an objective assessment of whether the granting of the application will cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services, with regard to the proper development of the liquor industry, the tourism industry and other hospitality industries in the State. The submissions made on behalf of the Director in respect to this issue are rejected by the Commission.
  • .pdf Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (380 KB)
  • LC08/2009 Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd trading as Liquorland Mandurah Forum v Director of Liquor Licensing Sunday Trading 5.10.4 Accordingly there is a case for a consistent approach in relation to the trading hours that the applicant seeks, particularly as they are to be the same as the Centre in relation to Sundays.
  • .pdf Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd trading as Liquorland Mandurah Forum v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (343 KB)
  • LC08/2009 Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd trading as Liquorland Mandurah Forum v Director of Liquor Licensing Sunday Trading 5.10.3 However, recognition under other legislation that allows designated Sunday trading by the larger retail centres in the city acknowledges the consumer shopping needs of Mandurah and the importance of the tourism industry in that region.
  • .pdf Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd trading as Liquorland Mandurah Forum v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (343 KB)
  • LC08/2014 Owen Keith Hutchinson v Commissioner of Police Fit and Proper 35 Given the Act's emphasis on regulation and its intention to prevent undesirable persons from participating in the liquor business, it is appropriate for the Commission to reach the conclusion that a person who has actively participated in the sale and supply of narcotics is not someone who is fit and proper to be involved in the sale and disposal of liquor in Western Australia, albeit indirectly through a unit trust.
  • .pdf Owen Keith Hutchinson v Commissioner of Police.pdf (267 KB)
  • LC08/2014 Owen Keith Hutchinson v Commissioner of Police Fit and Proper 36 Given the tightly regulated nature of the liquor industry, it is open to the Commission that a person who has committed such offences is not a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act on the basis of the nature of the offences committed, or their character and reputation.
  • .pdf Owen Keith Hutchinson v Commissioner of Police.pdf (267 KB)
  • LC08/2015 Commissioner of Police v Champagne Alley Pty Ltd Evidence, Public Interest 57 In the Commission's view, the test of whether an application is in the public interest does not necessarily depend upon a consideration of the number of letters of support, the number of respondents to a survey or the number of signatories to a petition, although this will be an important consideration in determining the level of demand for a particular service or product. The more important consideration is the relevance, substance and probative value of the supporting evidence.
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police v Champagne Alley Pty Ltd.pdf (79 KB)
  • LC09/2016 Kununurra Liquor Pty Ltd Public Interest 81-83
    The critical issues in respect to this application are the minimising of harm and ill-health caused due to the use of liquor and catering for requirements of consumers for liquor and related services. There is a tension between these two considerations as on the one hand, it is accepted that there is no liquor store in Kununurra of the type proposed by the applicant, but on the other hand, Kununurra is a town that has a significant level of pre-existing harm and ill-health occasioned by the use of alcohol...
  • .pdf Kununurra Liquor Pty Ltd.pdf (494 KB)
  • LC09/2016 Kununurra Liquor Pty Ltd Specific Comments 83
    It was submitted by counsel for the applicant that if the application were to be refused, the Commission would effectively be imposing a moratorium on the granting of liquor licences in Kununurra. That argument cannot be accepted as each application will be considered on its merits. In this instance, the primary object pursuant to section 5(1)(b) of the Act has taken precedence over the other objects, because of the significant social and health issues that exist in Kununurra and the number of persons who are already at risk due to the use of alcohol in that locality.
  • .pdf Kununurra Liquor Pty Ltd.pdf (494 KB)
  • LC09/2017 ALDI Harrisdale Procedural Fairness 13
    The Commission is required to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms. Having regard to that requirement, the Commission has given full weight to all of the evidence considered at first instance relevant to the application made by ALDI and not adopted the approach advocated by the Director, that being that less weight should be given to the evidence adduced by the applicant on the basis that there is now a BWS store operating in the locality. Had such an approach been adopted, it would have been totally unfair to the applicant.
  • .pdf ALDI Harrisdale.pdf (124 KB)
  • LC09/2017 ALDI Harrisdale Proper Development of Industry 19, 20 and 22
    In any event, the submissions advanced on behalf of the Director were based on the misconception that section 5(1)(c) of the Act required an applicant to establish a need or call or requirement for liquor in the locality. The submissions ignored the wording of the provision which states that one of the primary objects of the act is, ‘to cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services, with regard to the proper development of the liquor industry, the tourism industry and other hospitality industries in the State.’ [emphasis added]...
  • .pdf ALDI Harrisdale.pdf (124 KB)
  • LC09/2017 ALDI Harrisdale Public Interest 42
    The granting of a licence for the selling of packaged liquor in a floor space of 24 square metres would not result in a proliferation of liquor stores within the locality or a proliferation of liquor within the locality. To the contrary, given the nature of products to be sold by the applicant it will add to the diversity of products on offer and allow greater choice for consumers of liquor, thus being consistent with the primary object set out in section 5(1)(c) of the Act.
  • .pdf ALDI Harrisdale.pdf (124 KB)
  • LC09/2017 ALDI Harrisdale Procedural Fairness 9
    The Delegate stated that he could ‘…grant one, both or none of the competing applications’ , but it is evident from the totality of the reasons that the ALDI application was not properly determined on its merits in that the Delegate viewed the two applications as a competition and made a value judgement as to which application would better service the locality, as revealed by the comments made at paragraph 64 of the written reasons for decision.
  • .pdf ALDI Harrisdale.pdf (124 KB)
  • LC10/2016 Kalahari Clarkson Public Interest 81
    It is understandable and not unexpected that customers of a grocery store would express support for an expansion of the retail offering to include liquor products. However, the applicant must demonstrate the grant of the application is in the public interest, not simply that it may satisfy their customers’ needs or preferences.
  • .pdf Kalahari Clarkson.pdf (377 KB)
  • LC10/2016 Kalahari Clarkson One Stop Shopping, Public Interest 105
    As has previously been stated, the convenience factor itself for a select group of customers is not sufficient on its own to justify the granting of a liquor licence and without specific information on the liquor product items being sought by customers or potential customers, or whether these items are currently available elsewhere in the suburbs listed in the application, the Commission is not persuaded that the granting of the application is in the public interest.
  • .pdf Kalahari Clarkson.pdf (377 KB)
  • LC10/2016 Kalahari Clarkson Public Interest 103
    In the Commission’s view, a measured approach is required to the consideration of the broader public interest and in determining whether the grant of the application will contribute to the proper development of the liquor industry, the tourism industry and other hospitality industries in the state
  • .pdf Kalahari Clarkson.pdf (377 KB)
  • LC10/2017 Tristan Kempton v Commissioner of Police Barring Notices 33-35
    It appears to me from these references that the applicant’s behaviour on this occasion was out of character.
  • .pdf Tristan Kempton v Commissioner of Police.pdf (81 KB)
  • LC10/2017 Tristan Kempton v Commissioner of Police Barring Notices 37
    The potential impact on the applicant’s ability to participate in work functions and/or training programs held on licensed premises is a more relevant consideration.
  • .pdf Tristan Kempton v Commissioner of Police.pdf (81 KB)
  • LC10/2017 Tristan Kempton Barring Notices 24
    Section 115AA(2) does not specify or require that the person to whom a barring notice may be issued must have been charged or convicted of an offence. Nor does the section require that the person to whom the barring notice is issued must have engaged in habitual or repetitious behaviour of the type specified in the section.
  • .pdf Tristan Kempton.pdf (81 KB)
  • LC11/2012 Barrio Enoteca Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 24 The lodgement of a certificate of the local planning authority pursuant to section 40 of the Act along with the application is a procedural formality that needs to be complied with at the time of the lodgement of the application with the licensing authority. It does not constitute a submission by the local authority supporting the merits of the application. The certificate simply states that the application will comply with all relevant planning (emphasis added) laws.
  • .pdf Barrio Enoteca Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (201 KB)
  • LC11/2012 Barrio Enoteca Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 23 Assertions relating to the perceived benefits to the public of the grant of the application were supported by limited evidence. At the hearing, submissions were made as to the level of support from the Town of Victoria Park. The only evidence of the local council's participation in the proceeding before the Director and before the Commission was the resolution passed by the council in support of this application for the purpose of issuing a section 40 certificate. The material before the Commission does not identify any further additional submissions made by the local council in support of the application.
  • .pdf Barrio Enoteca Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (201 KB)
  • LC11/2016 Mr Christopher Farrand Barring Notices 47-50
    The community has a right to expect that indecent behaviour will not be tolerated, and the integrity of the liquor, hospitality and tourism industries is dependent upon indecent behaviour not occurring, on licensed premises.
  • .pdf Mr Christopher Farrand.pdf (225 KB)
  • LC12/2016 Con's Liquor Geraldton Evidence 40
    In applying the approach referred to by Allanson J in Carnegies, the Commission has come to the view that whilst there are recognised harm and ill-health issues related to the use of alcohol in Geraldton, it is satisfied that the likely degree of harm that would result from the granting of the application is low due to the experience and demonstrated operational capabilities of the applicant.
  • .pdf Con's Liquor Geraldton.pdf (140 KB)
  • LC12/2016 Con's Liquor Geraldton Public Interest 54
    In applying the approach referred to by Allanson J in Carnegies, the Commission has come to the view that whilst there are recognised harm and ill-health issues related to the use of alcohol in Geraldton, it is satisfied that the likely degree of harm that would result from the granting of the application is low due to the experience and demonstrated operational capabilities of the applicant.
  • .pdf Con's Liquor Geraldton.pdf (140 KB)
  • LC13/2014 Angela Joy Bracknell Fit and Proper 31 The Commission is cognisant that it is a primary responsibility of the licensing authority to provide adequate controls over the persons directly and indirectly involved in the sale, disposal and consumption of liquor and that the professional standards of the industry and creditworthiness of the persons in responsible positions must be maintained at the highest level.
  • .pdf Angela Joy Bracknell.pdf (46 KB)
  • LC14/2009 Palmerville Pty Ltd trading as Utakarra Liquor Barn v Director of Liquor Licensing and another Specific Comments 10.2.4 On the plain meaning of the words in Section 89 of the Act, the Commission finds that it does not have the jurisdiction to determine the Lease dispute. The words in section 89(a) ...pending the determination of the dispute in a manner approved by the Director (emphasis added)... do not give powers to the Director himself to determine the dispute- the section gives power to the Director to suspend the operation of the Licence pending the determination of the dispute in a manner approved by the Director as stated above
  • .pdf Palmerville Pty Ltd trading as Utakarra Liquor Barn v Director of Liquor Licensing and another.pdf (610 KB)
  • LC14/2015 Mr McLay and others v Garrett Hotels 2010 Pty Ltd and Primary Securities Ltd Undue 35 In Re McHenry [1987] 4 SR (WA) 31, Sharkey J held that the word “undue” had to be determined and qualified according to the nature of the neighbourhood, so that what might constitute “undue” noise in one neighbourhood may not constitute undue noise in another. In this case, the neighbourhood is a mixed use, high-density tourist precinct, comprising of hotels, restaurants, tourist accommodation and residential accommodation. It is not outer suburbia.
  • .pdf Mr McLay and others v Garrett Hotels 2010 Pty Ltd and Primary Securities Ltd.pdf (295 KB)
  • LC14/2015 Mr McLay and others v Garrett Hotels 2010 Pty Ltd and Primary Securities Ltd Undue 34 The noise must be one that would be regarded by a reasonable person as “undue”, having regard to what could reasonably be expected from a facility of the kind licensed (PSB Operations Pty Ltd Licensee of the Old Swan Brewery Restaurant –v- Jansen & Anor [2006] WASCA 270).
  • .pdf Mr McLay and others v Garrett Hotels 2010 Pty Ltd and Primary Securities Ltd.pdf (295 KB)
  • LC14/2015 Mr McLay and others v Garrett Hotels 2010 Pty Ltd and Primary Securities Ltd Undue 33  “Undue” or “unduly” in this context creates an objective test, adopting the ordinary meaning of the words and does not leave a licensee at risk by the subjective sensibilities of its immediate neighbours.
  • .pdf Mr McLay and others v Garrett Hotels 2010 Pty Ltd and Primary Securities Ltd.pdf (295 KB)
  • LC15/2009 Springmist Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 33 The section 100 requirement for supervision and management must be considered in the context of each application. The Act does not require personal management and supervision of short stay tenants consuming alcohol in the privacy of a one bedroom rental apartment to the same extent as licensed premises that are open to the general public. Such an interpretation of the Act would be unreasonable, impractical and inconsistent with Section 5(2)(e) of the Act.
  • .pdf Springmist Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (206 KB)
  • LC15/2010 Fremantle Beverages Pty Ltd trading as Impact Bar v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others Northbridge 54 to 55 54. One final comment. Northbridge is Perth's premier entertainment precinct, attracting large numbers of people from through the metropolitan area and tourists each day and more significantly, at night on weekends. There is a high density of licensed premises, catering for a variety of consumer demands, in a relatively small locality, which, when mixed with a large influx of patrons late at night creates an environment that has led to an increase in anti-social behaviour and alcohol related problems. Arguably, Northbridge is no different to entertainment precincts in other capital cities in Australia and elsewhere in other developed countries. This is not to excuse or downplay the extent of alcohol-related harm that occurs in Northbridge, but to put it in some context. 55. Consequently, whilst the evidence indicates that alcohol is a major contributing factor to much of the harm data, there is nonetheless a range of complex social dynamics which interplay to create the problems in Northbridge. There is no simple solution to these problems and all agencies must work collaboratively to solve them. However, the Commission must balance the existing alcohol related harm against providing for the demand by consumers for liquor and related services in this entertainment precinct.
  • .pdf Fremantle Beverages Pty Ltd trading as Impact Bar v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others.pdf (213 KB)
  • LC15/2013 Kyle Anthony Della Vedova v Commissioner of Police Barring Notices 20 In Cale Raegan Murray v Commissioner of Police (LC01/2013) the Commission said: I accept that community standards evolve over time and what was once regarded as offensive may not be today. The sight of a naked man on the dance floor of a night club may not cause the shock and outrage that it may have done to our Victorian forbears, however ... licensed premises are still not the place for this kind of behaviour. It is inappropriate and offensive by any reasonable standard and something patrons of such premises should not have to endure.
  • .pdf Kyle Anthony Della Vedova v Commissioner of Police.pdf (161 KB)
  • LC16/2010 Commissioner of Police v Bradley Hayes Dorrington Prohibition Application 17 A prohibition order is not about punishing the respondent; it is about protecting the public. People who attend licensed premises have a right to expect that those premises are safe and free from drunken violence and anti-social behavior.
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police v Bradley Hayes Dorrington.pdf (121 KB)
  • LC16/2015 Carine Glades Tavern Evidence 91
    The Commission also holds the view that allowing the expert report to be substituted could not be constituted to be an expansion of the material already before the Director. Relevantly, the Commission in Shallcross Investments Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing (LC26/2010) stated “Notwithstanding the various provisions of the Act which provide for an informal and flexible liquor licensing system, the licensing authority can not run an application, objection or intervention on behalf of the individual parties because to do so would place the licensing authority in an unsustainable position.”
  • .pdf Carine Glades Tavern.pdf (423 KB)
  • LC16/2015 Carine Glades Tavern Public Interest 107
    The applicant has submitted that the range of product lines and services of a Dan Murphy’s is more extensive than a First Choice liquor store and this is not disputed, however, it is not considered that the degree of difference is such that an additional liquor store of such a scale in such close proximity will be in public interest and cater for the requirements of consumers with regard to the proper development of the liquor industry.
  • .pdf Carine Glades Tavern.pdf (423 KB)
  • LC17/2010 Busswater Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Another Public Interest 36 In considering the public interest under section 38, the licensing authority needs to consider both the positive and negative social, economic and health impacts that the grant of an application will have on a community (refer Second Reading Speech, Parliamentary Debates, WA Parliament, vol 409, p6342). In determining the positive aspects of an application, ere opinions expressed by an applicant as to the perceived benefits of the grant of their application, in the absence of supporting evidence, falls well short of the level of evidence required to substantiate such a claim. In addition, letters of support from business people purporting to speak on behalf of of consumers simply does not go far enough to satisfy the Commission that the general public have a requirement for liquor and related services in the manner proposed by the applicant (object 5(1)(c) of the Act). Statements by applicants, without supporting evidence, cannot be construed as facts.
  • .pdf Busswater Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Another.pdf (227 KB)
  • LC18/2013 ML Liquor Store Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police and Another Public Interest 36 Determining whether the grant of an application is in the public interest requires the Commission to exercise a discretionary value judgement confined only by the subject matter and the scope and purpose of the legislation (refer Re Minister for Resources: ex parte Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd [2007] WACA 175 and Palace Securities Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing (1992) 7 WAR 241). The Commission notes the words of Tamberlin J in McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2005] FCAFC 142 where he said: the reference to the public interest appears in the extensive range of legislative provisions upon which tribunals and courts are required to make determinations as to what decision will be in the public interest. This expression is, on the authorities, one that does not have any fixed meaning. It is of the widest import and is generally not defined or described in the legislative framework, nor, generally speaking, can it be defined. It is not desirable that the courts or tribunals, in an attempt to prescribe some generally applicable rule, should give a description of the public interest that confines this expression. The expression in the public interest directs attention to that conclusion or determination which best serves the advancement of the interest or welfare of the public, society or the nation and its content will depend on each particular set of circumstances.
  • .pdf ML Liquor Store Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police and Another.pdf (181 KB)
  • LC18/2013 ML Liquor Store Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police and Another Public Interest 39 As noted by the Commission in Busswater Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing (LC17/2010): In considering the public interest under section 38, the licensing authority needs to consider both the positive and negative social, economic and health impacts that the grant of an application will have on a community (refer Second Reading Speech, Parliamentary Debates, WA Parliament, vol 409, p 6342). In determining the positive aspects of an application, mere opinions expressed by and applicant as to the perceived benefits of the grant of their application, in the absence of supporting evidence, falls well short of the level of evidence required to substantiate such a claim. In addition, letters of support from business people purporting to speak on behalf of consumers simply does not go far enough to satisfy the Commission that the general public has a requirement for liquor and related services in the manner proposed by the applicant (object 5(1)( c) of the Act). Statements by applicants, without supporting evidence, cannot be construed as facts.
  • .pdf ML Liquor Store Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police and Another.pdf (227 KB)
  • LC18/2015 Liquorland South Bunbury Public Interest 133
    A measured approach requires a careful consideration of the broader public interest and simply because a service is as convenient, or more convenient than that currently available does not, of itself, satisfy the primary and secondary objects or the public interest as specified in the Act.
  • .pdf Liquorland South Bunbury.pdf (396 KB)
  • LC18/2015 Liquorland South Bunbury Proper Development of Industry 134 Proper development of the liquor industry is not synonymous with the unrestricted expansion of liquor outlets to satisfy a desire on the part of some consumers of liquor or liquor related services for a relatively insignificant or inconsequential modification or improvement to the level of convenience. The long term interests of liquor industry are best served by a controlled development of the industry having regard to public perceptions of the industry and the overall health and well being of the community.
  • .pdf Liquorland South Bunbury.pdf (396 KB)
  • LC18/2015 Liquorland South Bunbury Public Interest 125
    Convenience is just one factor to be considered when considering the requirement of consumers for liquor - under the current Act it must be considered having regard to the proper development of the liquor industry, the other objects of the Act and, of course, the public interest.
  • .pdf Liquorland South Bunbury.pdf (396 KB)
  • LC18/2015 Liquorland South Bunbury Discretion 127 Liquor is a product that may have negative consequences in the community and is subject to extensive regulation as to its sale, supply and consumption. These controls and restrictions exist for the benefit of the community and whilst some members of the community may express a desire for more convenience, the Commission is entrusted with the responsibility of making a determination on whether the public interest is served by any proposal to widen or extend the level of convenience currently enjoyed by the public by the extension or granting of certain licences.
  • .pdf Liquorland South Bunbury.pdf (396 KB)
  • LC18/2015 Liquorland South Bunbury Public Interest 143
    As with convenience, the provision of a wider or alternative range of liquor products, of itself, is not a strong reason, or even a reason, to introduce another liquor store into a shopping centre or precinct. Each case will depend upon its circumstances. Different liquor stores sell a variety of different liquor products. The community does not expect nor, in the Commission’s view, is it in the public interest for liquor store licences to be granted in close proximity to other liquor outlets simply because someone identifies one or more product lines or different types of liquor that are not currently catered for either in a shopping centre or precinct or some other setting. The benefits that such a proposal is likely to deliver to some consumers has to be balanced against what is in the best interests of the liquor industry and the community.
  • .pdf Liquorland South Bunbury.pdf (396 KB)
  • LC19/2010 Tocoan Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others Interveners 50 Unlike an objector, there is no onus on interveners to establish their assertions of fact or opinion (refer Re Gull Liquor (1999) 20 SR (WA) 321)
  • .pdf Tocoan Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others.pdf (513 KB)
  • LC19/2011 Shane Van Styn v Commissioner of Police Barring Notices 12 This provision is clearly designed to protect the public from people who engage in disorderly or offensive behavior on licensed premises and is not focused on punishing an individual for their actions. During the parliamentary debate on the amendments to section 115AA, the Minister for Racing and Gaming stated that ... the whole idea of this legislation is to protect the general public, the licensee, which is pretty important, and also the person.
  • .pdf Shane Van Styn v Commissioner of Police.pdf (139 KB)
  • LC21/2015 MYD Korea Pty Ltd (Nungcool Butcher) Public Interest 41
    If convenience was seen to be meeting the “public interest” requirement, then the weight to be accorded to that factor would also need to be reviewed in the context of the proper development of the liquor industry. In that respect, the provision of liquor products in supermarkets, delicatessens, butchers, or other retail outlets where grocery items are purchased regularly, and at which it would merely be convenient to buy liquor, is viewed by the Commission as not being a sufficient reason to grant an application for a liquor store licence.
  • .pdf MYD Korea Pty Ltd (Nungcool Butcher).pdf (131 KB)
  • LC22/2012 City of Rockingham v Tocoan Pty Ltd Undue 36
    King CJ in Vandeleur v Delbra Pty Ltd and the Liquor Licensing Commission (1988) 48 SASR 156 following Wells J in Hackey Tavern Nominees Pty Ltd v MacLeod (1983) 34 SASR 217 stated ... the test of what is undue therefore is concerned with excess over what will naturally result from the conduct of licensed premises ... whether such annoyance and disturbance or inconvenience can be regarded as undue is a matter of degree and will depend on circumstances. These cases were determined in South Australia however the principle is equally applicable to section 117 of the Western Australian Act.
  • .pdf City of Rockingham v Tocoan Pty Ltd.pdf (1389 KB)
  • LC22/2012 City of Rockingham v Tocoan Pty Ltd Undue 35
    The respondent premises are located in what is generally known as the waterfront village characterised by the presence of a number of licensed premises, food outlets and other entertainment venues. Hence it is reasonable to expect a higher by not undue level of noise and disturbance and unruly behaviour.
  • .pdf City of Rockingham v Tocoan Pty Ltd.pdf (1389 KB)
  • LC22/2012 City of Rockingham v Tocoan Pty Ltd Undue 37
    In re McHenry 4 SRWA (1987) Sharkey J stated in order to determine whether the quiet has been unduly disturbed it required the words to be given their ordinary and natural meaning ... the words must be qualified by the neighbourhood. Thus in quiet neighbourhoods, disturbance might be undue which is not so in a more noisy neighbourhood.
  • .pdf City of Rockingham v Tocoan Pty Ltd.pdf (1389 KB)
  • LC22/2013 Cellsan Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 17 At the hearing of the application, counsel for the Director made the submission that the Minister for Racing and Gaming, the Honourable Max Evans had made an error in stating that section 4(6) applied to any licence category. The submission was predicated on the basis of the use of the words licence on or from in section 4(5) of the Act. It was submitted that this phrase was peculiar to producers and wholesalers licences. That is, only licences issued pursuant to sections 55(1) and 58(1) of the Act grant an authority to sell liquor on or from the licensed premises.
  • .pdf Cellsan Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (142 KB)
  • LC22/2013 Cellsan Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 18 Having regard to the clear intention of Parliament, the Commission does not accept that sections 4(5) and 4(6) only apply to producers and wholesalers licences. To adopt such a position would run contrary to the clear intention of Parliament. If the legislature had intended such a position, then it would have been clearly enunciated at the time that the section were enacted.
  • .pdf Cellsan Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (142 KB)
  • LC22/2017 Hungry Hollow Tavern Transfer of Licence 70 It is irrelevant, in the Commission’s view, that the decision was ultimately made by the Director under section 84(1)(c) of the Act and therefore did not require the consent of the applicant.
  • .pdf Hungry Hollow Tavern.pdf (441 KB)
  • LC22/2017 Hungry Hollow Tavern Specific Comments 39 and 66
    A director acting individually, absent any express or implied actual authority, has no apparent authority to bind a company; …The term “dissatisfied” was considered by the Full Court of the Federal Court…
  • .pdf Hungry Hollow Tavern.pdf (441 KB)
  • LC22/2017 Hungry Hollow Tavern Scope of Section 25(2)(c) 32-34
    These issues can only arise after a decision has been made by the Director, and, consequently, it is unlikely that the material before the Director will contain all the material necessary for the Commission to properly decide on the issues.
  • .pdf Hungry Hollow Tavern.pdf (441 KB)
  • LC23/2011 Commissioner of Police v Circuit Nightclub Pty Ltd Management of Premises 32 One of the primary objects of the Act is to minimize harm or ill-health caused to people, or any group of people, due to the use of liquor. To support and reinforce this primary object, the Act has been progressively amended over the years to include provisions for mandatory training in responsible service practices; the introduction of a public interest test; the ability of the licensing authority to impose conditions on licences to minimize alcohol related harm and ensure public order and safety; and ensure the proper supervision and management of licensed premises to name just a few. Through the regulation of the liquor industry, the Act clearly correlates the sale and consumption of alcohol in our community with the public interest and the protection of the community and therefore places obligations and responsibilities on persons who are entrusted with the privilege to operate and manage licensed premises.
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police v Circuit Nightclub Pty Ltd.pdf (90 KB)
  • LC23/2014 TCC Perth Airport Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 44 Similarly the Commission does not have the power to vary the decision by granting a licence of another class as it is prevented by section 46B(2), but section 46B(1) of the Act allows the licensing authority, with the agreement of the applicant, to treat an application for a special facility licence as an application for the grant of a licence of another class. Section 46B(1) only applies if the licensing authority does not grant a special facility licence, because section 46(2) of the Act applies (which applies if a licence of another class would achieve the purpose for which the special facility licence is sought).
  • .pdf TCC Perth Airport Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (219 KB)
  • LC24/2011 Commissioner of Police v Bremerton Pty Ltd and West Lander Pty Ltd Section 95 29 The Commission also accepts that licensees cannot always prevent some violent incidents occuring at their premises, however where there is a frequency of anti-social behavior in and about the licensed premises, this may reflect on a licensee's permissive attitude towards intoxication and poor management practices. The respondent submitted that in respect of an incident involving OMCG members, OMCG's have a reputation for both criminal behaviour and unprovoked violence. However if this is the case, the Commission is surprised that the licensee would allow these persons, who according to police are known to the licensee, onto the licensed premises in the first instance.
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police v Bremerton Pty Ltd and West Lander Pty Ltd.pdf (79 KB)
  • LC25/2009 Chernov Pty Ltd, Chitty Pty Ltd and Legge Pty Ltd trading as Sunset Events v Director of Liquor Licensing Transfer of Licence All Whole decision.
  • .pdf Chernov Pty Ltd, Chitty Pty Ltd and Legge Pty Ltd trading as Sunset Events v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (164 KB)
  • LC25/2015 Toodyay IGA Liquor One Stop Shopping 71
    The applicant’s contention that Toodyay lacks a “one-stop shopping” opportunity confuses the concept of one-stop shopping which may be available in a large regional or suburban shopping complex or centre. Members of a local rural community typically resort to a wide range of shops in the town for their daily and weekly requirements, and in Toodyay, some of these shops, such as a chemist and bank, are in closer proximity to the existing Stables Liquor Store than the proposed liquor store. In fact, the town of Toodyay could well be regarded as a one-stop shopping centre in a similar context as a metropolitan shopping centre where the distance factors between liquor and other purchases are similar.
  • .pdf Toodyay IGA Liquor.pdf (350 KB)
  • LC26/2010 Shallcross Investments Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Discretion 28 Notwithstanding the various provisions of the Act which provide for an informal and flexible liquor licensing system, the licensing authority can not run an application, objection or intervention on behalf of the individual parties because to do so would place the licensing authority in an unsustainable position.
  • .pdf Shallcross Investments Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (177 KB)
  • LC26/2014 Springbox Foods Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others Public Interest 71 The convenience of purchasing liquor products with other food and grocery products in the same store in the circumstances of this application is not, of itself, a persuasive factor in demonstrating a consumer requirement for liquor and related services as envisaged by section 5(1)(c) of the Act.
  • .pdf Springbox Foods Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others.pdf (115 KB)
  • LC26/2014 Springbox Foods Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others Petitions 66
    The nature of the questions in the witness petitions about the public interest and minimising harm or ill-health to anyone in the locality are of limited value as there is no evidence that the petitioners are aware of the importance of these terms in the context of the Act.
  • .pdf Springbox Foods Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others.pdf (115 KB)
  • LC27/2013 Woolworths Ltd v Steve Bolesta, Bolesta's Backyard Creations and Others Public Interest 53 Granting this licence would increase the current packaged liquor floor space in Margaret River and self evidently outlet density but this does not in itself mean that the granting of the application would be contrary to the objects of the Act and/or not in the public interest ...
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Steve Bolesta, Bolesta's Backyard Creations and Others.pdf (227 KB)
  • LC28/2011 Nickolas Thomas Martin v Commissioner of Police Specific Comments 35 Important considerations are the objects of the Act found at section 5 and the long title to the Act. In particular the primary objectives at section 5(1)(a) to regulate the sale, supply and consumption of liquor and section 5(1)(b) to minimise harm or ill-health caused to people due to the use of liquor. The secondary objects, in particular 5(2)(d), calls for adequate controls over the disposal and consumption of liquor. The long title to the Act provides for orders that may prohibit persons from entering licensed premises. Thus the scheme of the Act and the intention of Parliament are about regulation, safety and control.
  • .pdf Nickolas Thomas Martin v Commissioner of Police.pdf (149 KB)
  • LC28/2014 Mad Mex Fresh Mexican Grill Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 40 The inference which the Commission draws from these definitions is that a patron visiting a restaurant is entitled to and expects a seat at a table to be provided and available at which he or she may enjoy their meal. In the case of this application, this is clearly not the case as a patron does not initially know whether or not he or she can be seated or will have to take their food elsewhere to be consumed. This is clearly not in compliance with the letter or spirit of section 3(1) of the Act.
  • .pdf Mad Mex Fresh Mexican Grill Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (163 KB)
  • LC28/2014 Mad Mex Fresh Mexican Grill Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Public Interest 41 The size of the premises is not determinative. The business model is not determinative. The toilet facilities are not determinative. The number of seats is not determinative. The number of patrons who take-away or eat on premises at a particular time and occasion is not determinative. But each and all of those factors, considered in their totality, lead the Commission to that conclusion.
  • .pdf Mad Mex Fresh Mexican Grill Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (115 KB)
  • LC29/2010 Highmoon Pty Ltd and Yardoo Pty Ltd v EDPH and Another Northbridge 36 Although the applicant has disputed some of the data presented by the EDPH and provided evidence that crime and anti-social behavior in the area may have decreased in the past 12 months, it is nonetheless still significantly high. The Commission has previously acknowledged in its decisions that Northbridge experiences high levels of alcohol-related harm. This is clearly enunciated in Fremantle Beverages Pty Ltd trading as the Impact Bar (LC15/2010) at paragraphs 54 and 55 where it was stated ... (see above)
  • .pdf Highmoon Pty Ltd and Yardoo Pty Ltd v EDPH and Another.pdf (325 KB)
  • LC29/2014 Upper Reach Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Another Petitions 61
    Irrespective of the number of questionnaires or number of signatures (to say) a petition or survey, it is the probative value of this evidence that is the issue not the numbers. Among other things this will depend on how the questionnaires were framed, by whom collected and collated, whether there was any culling of opposing views and how they were obtained. In Woolworths Ltd v Commissioner of Police (LC12/2013) the Commission observed that: Historically, the Commission has tended to treat petitions with some caution. While giving an indication of the public's level of support for the establishment of an outlet, petitions rarely, if ever, by their nature, give an indication of people with a contrary view.
  • .pdf Upper Reach Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Another.pdf (184 KB)
  • LC30/2009 Lano(WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 4.6 There are issues of concern for the Director if an Application is deferred too long as circumstances can change quickly and matters such as the public interest assessment can lose their currency. It is not unreasonable for the Director to request that Applications are updated where the process has been adjourned or conditional approval has been given.
  • .pdf Lano(WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (192 KB)
  • LC30/2009 Lano(WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 4.5 It is suggested that all applicants should be aware of a reasonable time limit at the commencement of the application process and that this will be applied uniformly. Local Government has a two year time limit for conditional development approval and similarly the West Australian Planning Commission has a two year limit for conditional subdivision approval. If the Director was to adopt this time limit as a matter of policy it would provide certainty to the Applicant.
  • .pdf Lano(WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (192 KB)
  • LC30/2009 Lano(WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 4.4 As a matter of policy the Director should impose a time limit on conditional section 40 certificates to deter speculative applications and maintain the proper development of the liquor industry. Whether the Director does this by adjourning the application sine die or granting conditional approval pursuant to section 62A of the Act is a matter for him to decide on the merits of the case. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to be aware of the considerable time and uncertainties involved in rezoning applications and not make premature Applications. The risk lies with the Applicant not the Director.
  • .pdf Lano(WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (192 KB)
  • LC30/2010 Commissioner of Police v Leohag Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Kwinana Lodge Hotel Section 95 36 ... The evidence reflects a permissive attitude by the licensee and its staff to unacceptable levels of intoxication. Having an approved manager on the premises and staff trained in the responsible service of alcohol achieves little unless management promotes, and staff actively implement, responsible server practices.
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police v Leohag Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Kwinana Lodge Hotel.pdf (158 KB)
  • LC30/2014 Entrepreneur West Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police and Others Discretion 54 As with any decision involving considerations of a predictive nature, the assessment of the risk of, and the potential for, harm or ill-health resulting from the grant on an application to permit additional trading hours for the sale and consumption of liquor is not an exact science and cannot be determined with certainty.
  • .pdf Entrepreneur West Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police and Others.pdf (75 KB)
  • LC31/2013 Commissioner of Police v Jacqueline Toni Oates Management of Premises 19 A person who is employed as an approved manager is required to exhibit high standards of honesty and integrity. He/she must be able to effectively manage the business under a licence and this involves, amongst other things: dealing with difficult situations lawfully and responsively; and conducting the business on behalf of the licensee in accordance with the provisions of the act
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police v Jacqueline Toni Oates.pdf (127 KB)
  • LC32/2010 Element WA Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Procedural Fairness 30 The Commission also accepts that licensees cannot always prevent some violent incidents occurring at their premises, however where there is a frequency of anti-social behavior in and about the licensed premises, this may reflect on a licensee's permissive attitude towards intoxication and poor management practices. The respondent submitted that in respect of an incident involving OMCG members, OMCG's have a reputation for both criminal behaviour and unprovoked violence. However if this is the case, the Commission is surprised that the licensee would allow these persons, who according to police are known to the licensee, onto the licensed premises in the first instance.
  • .pdf Element WA Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (145 KB)
  • LC32/2010 Element WA Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Discretion 29 To grant a liquor store licence based upon a 'good idea' by an applicant is not consistent with the Act or the intent of Parliament. The proliferation of licences was not an intended outcome of the introduction of the public interest test under section 38 of the Act (see Parliamentary Debates, WA Parliament, vol 409, p6342). As stated earlier in this decision (and previous decisions of the Commission) the public interest test under section 38(2) requires the licensing authority to consider the merits of an application based upon the positive and negative impact that the grant of the licence would have on the local community. In this context, an applicant needs to adduce sufficient evidence to support its claims, not just abstract generalisations. Otherwise, the granting of licences under the Act would become arbitrary and not in accordance with the objects of the Act. Needless to say, the level and quality of evidence to be submitted by an applicant will vary on a case by case basis. Whilst the Commission acknowledges the provision of sections 16(1)(a) and 16(7)(a) this does not diminish an applicant's obligations under section 38(2) of the Act.
  • .pdf Element WA Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (145 KB)
  • LC33/2010 Commissioner of Police v That's Entertainment (WA) Pty Ltd T/A The Clink Nightclub Section 95 27 A licensee who takes its obligations under the Act seriously and is committed to the responsible service of alcohol and minimising alcohol related harm in the community would have implemented appropriate strategies to deal with a very clear emerging trend long before this complaint was lodged by the Police. The Commission rejects the respondent's submission that the police should have provided some warning to the licensee prior to submitting this complaint. The licensee's own management and incident reports should have been sufficient warning that early intervention and action by the licensee was necessary.
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police v That's Entertainment (WA) Pty Ltd T/A The Clink Nightclub.pdf (98 KB)
  • LC34/2011 Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others Evidence 58 The Act places a clear onus on an applicant to adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the licensing authority that the grant of the application is in the public interest. The level and degree of evidence to be submitted by an applicant will invariably vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Whether evidence is relevant and probative depends not on the intrinsic qualities of the evidence but on what the evidence is said to prove. Based upon the facts in this application, the Commission is not satisfied that adequate or compelling evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the grant of this licence will cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services in the manner and under the circumstance contemplated by the applicant at the proposed location.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others.pdf (117 KB)
  • LC34/2011 Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Discretion, Public Interest 54 First, the Commission rejects the general principle that merely because a business model has proven to be popular in other localities, that that justifies the grant of a new licence in this locality or any other locality. Such a contention is untenable and ignores the regulatory scheme and objects of the Act; the need to consider the merits of each case; and need to properly weigh and balance the public interest considerations in the context of each individual application.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (117 KB)
  • LC34/2011 Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others Locality 60
    Prior to the commencement of the hearing before the Commission, the applicant sought some interlocutory orders in respect of the objectors, submissions of the interveners and other matters. With the consent of the parties the Commission reserved its decision on the proposed orders and as can be seen from the reasons in this decision nothing much turns on this issue. For the sake of completeness however, the Commission will briefly deal with some of these issues. The Commission confirms that the defined locality for the application is a 2 kilometre radius around the proposed site of the premises, which is in accordance with the policy of the Director of Liquor Licensing. By way of observation, and once again it is not critical to the outcome of this application, the reference to the locality in respect of an application only relates to the potential impact that the grant of the application may have on the amenity of the locality (refer section 38(4)(b)), otherwise a reference to the locality has no limiting consideration in respect of the harm or ill-health that may result from the grant of an application or any other public interest considerations. Also, the objectors and the City of Melville did not actively participate in these proceedings other than to lodge general statements expressing opposition to the grant of the application. No evidence was presented by the objectors or the City of Melville to substantiate their claims, consequently the Commission finds that the objectors have not discharged their onus under section 73(10) which places the burden of establishing the validity of any objection on the objector.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others.pdf (117 KB)
  • LC34/2012 Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 8 As the issues of leave needs to be reconsidered by the Director, it follows that the decision to cancel the licence needs to be reviewed by the Commission. It would be otiose to grant the application for review of the decision to refuse leave but not allow the application for review of the decision to cancel the licence. Liquorland would be left in a position where it was seeking a grant of leave for the transfer of a licence that was no longer in existence. So as to protect the position of the applicant, on the basis that the issue of leave was not properly considered by the Director at first instance, the Commission is prepared to use its powers to quash the decision to cancel the licence so that the issue of leave can be considered by the Director.
  • .pdf Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (121 KB)
  • LC34/2012 Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing Specific Comments 7 Only one of the prerequisites set out in section 84(1) of the Act needs to apply to an application for the transfer of a licence having regard to the use of the word or which is disjunctive in nature. (see section 17 of the Interpretation Act 1984) The Director appears to have erred in the consideration of the grant of leave by considering that at least one of the matters set out in section 84(1)(a) and (b) of the Act had to be satisfied before leave would be granted pursuant to section 84(1)(c) of the Act. The Commission has come to that conclusion based on the use of the words considering the above with reference to the reasons why leave was refused.
  • .pdf Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (121 KB)
  • LC34/2013 Commissioner of Police and Others v Northbridge Enterprises Pty Ltd Northbridge 68 The Commission is mindful of the City of Perth's objective to create a safe, relaxed and crime free atmosphere in the city centre and gives more weight to the Paterson's report's findings that even if all the Northbridge venues closed at midnight, most would find an alternative precinct, and rejects the opinion of Constable McGill, that patrons would change their socialising habits.
  • .pdf Commissioner of Police and Others v Northbridge Enterprises Pty Ltd.pdf (211 KB)
  • LC34/2014 Woolworths Ltd v Commissioner of Police Proper Development of Industry 41
    The proper development of the liquor industry is not a stand-alone consideration. It is a matter that must be considered, in the context of the primary requirement of the Act to cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Commissioner of Police.pdf (99 KB)
  • LC35/2011 Woolworths Ltd v Tintoc Pty Ltd Frivolous and Vexatious 31
    In relation to the issue of what constitutes frivolous or vexatious in the circumstances it is relevant to consider the following authority; The Commissioner of Police of Western Australia v AM [2010] WASCA 163(S) and the remarks made by Pullin J at paras 3 and 4 at page 4 and Buss J at paras 33 to 38 at pages 11 and 12, and the authorities referred to therein.
    LC35/2014 Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Evidence 65 It is not sufficient, by itself, to point to the existence of a segment of the population that has particular characteristics, such as 19.6% of the Australian population who experience some kind of food allergy, or a percentage of local people who are South African born, to demonstrate a demand for a particular type of liquor product.
  • .pdf Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (4020 KB)
  • LC35/2014 Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Petitions 74
    It may be said that there is no opposition to the proposed liquor store among the respondents to the survey, but this is perhaps not surprising as any added convenience is generally not unwelcome by members of the public.
  • .pdf Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (4020 KB)
  • LC35/2014 Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Petitions 66
    Further, the survey conducted by the applicant is of limited probative value to the Commission in assessing the demand for this type of product. There is no indications, apart from one respondent who expressed a preference for this type of product that the respondents require, or do not have access to these products.
  • .pdf Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (4020 KB)
  • LC35/2014 Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Evidence 79 The probative value of the letters of support is also limited. Without more detail of the actual knowledge of the shop managers and operators about the number of customers who have asked about a liquor store and their customers' requirements for liquor products, it is difficult to attach any weight to the pro-forma letters in assessing the demand for a liquor store in the shopping centre
  • .pdf Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (4020 KB)
  • LC35/2014 Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Petitions 70
    Moreover, the surveys are of limited value in assessing whether the respondents requirements are not satisfied by the existing liquor outlets in the locality, as it is not clear what motivated the respondents not to respond to the statement the existing packaged, takeaway liquor store venues in Mosman Park satisfy my packaged liquor requirements. Nor is it apparent why, and to what extent, existing liquor outlets do not satisfy their requirements.
  • .pdf Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (4020 KB)
  • LC35/2014 Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Petitions 69
    The survey also provides little or no evidence of an unmet demand for liquor of South African origin as there is no reference to this type of product in the survey.
  • .pdf Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (4020 KB)
  • LC35/2014 Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Evidence 62 There is a good deal of precedent in the form of the Commission's previous decisions and in the Director's guidelines for the preparation of PIA submissions on the extent and standard of evidence required to satisfy the Commission an application is in the public interest. Two extracts from the Director's Guidelines illustrate this point: * In considering the public interest, applicants should demonstrate the positive aspects of their application (including the social, economic and health impacts). It is not sufficient for applicants to merely demonstrate that the grant of the application will not have any negative impact * In decision [LC51/2011] the Commission stated ... the Applicant must present supporting evidence at the appropriate level to satisfy the Commission that there is a real and demonstrable consumer requirement to justify the granting of the licence ...Information that would be probative to the Commission includes market surveys, petitions of substance and information that demonstrates a real consumer requirement
  • .pdf Independent Liquor Merchants Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (4020 KB)
  • LC37/2010 Andrew Koh Nominees Pty Ltd v Great Victoria Corporation Pty Ltd Costs 22
    The Commission is of the view that as submitted by Counsel Assisting (and supported by the authorities referred to in those submissions: the Commission may have regard to the previous practice of the Court;

    the Commission is not bound by the previous practice of the Court and the policies to be adopted by the Commission is respect of the exercise of the discretion as to costs are matters for the Commission;

     in formulating its policy as to costs the Commission may have regard to Section 21(5)g of the Act which expressly provides that costs may be awarded against a party where proceedings have been brought frivolously or vexatiously. Such an approach would be consistent with the characterisation of the functions of the Commission as administrative rather than judicial;

    if the Commission is minded to exercise its discretion regarding costs against any party then that party must be put on notice of the prospect of any order being made and given the opportunity to put submissions on the questions of whether an order should be made;

    the discretionary nature of costs does not easily permit the formulation of any concrete rules as to the exercise of that discretion where the merits of the substantive matter are not argued and the issues become moot, except for the issues of costs itself;

    where the Court has such a broad discretion as to costs the conduct of the parties to the proceedings and the reasons for the discontinuance can bear heavily on the exercise of the discretion as to costs;

    although there is no merit in trying a hypothetical case or one that has otherwise been resolved it may be that one of the parties has acted so unreasonably that the other party should obtain the costs of the action;

    in determining the reasonableness of the actions of either party it may be relevant to consider the operation of the rules of the Commission, the parties' compliance with them and the motivation behind any application to discontinue proceedings;
     
    if it appears that both parties have acted reasonably in commencing and defending the proceedings and the conduct of the parties continued to be reasonable until the litigation was settled or its further prosecution became futile the proper exercise of the costs discretion will usually mean that the court will make no order as to the costs of the proceedings;
     
    it may be that, despite both parties having acted reasonably, one party was almost certain to succeed if the matter had proceeded and
     
    these principles can only be applied on a case by case basis within the context of the broad discretion to award costs granted by section 21 of the Act.
  • .pdf Andrew Koh Nominees Pty Ltd v Great Victoria Corporation Pty Ltd.pdf (145 KB)
  • LC37/2014 Langtrees Boutique Hotel Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police Specific Comments 71 In the Commission's view, the language and intent of the Act is clear: a person who is a prostitute or who is known to be a prostitute or who is an associate of a prostitute may be refused entry, refused service or asked to leave licensed premises, and the exercise of any powers in section 115(4) of the Act by an authorised person is not conditional or dependant on a prostitute plying his or her trade.
  • .pdf Langtrees Boutique Hotel Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police.pdf (3572 KB)
  • LC38/2014 Riley Enterprises (WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others Evidence 54 Thus it is incumbent upon the applicant to adduce sufficient evidence for the licensing authority to satisfy itself that the application is in the public interest. (see William Street Bird v Director of Liquor Licensing LC07/2010, [38]). This position was further supported by Heenan J in Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing [2012] WASC 384 at 37.
  • .pdf Riley Enterprises (WA) Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Others.pdf (75 KB)
  • LC39/2014 Penzance Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Another ETP 79 Should the applicant be granted an ETP then there may be a more orderly dispersal of patrons from the venue over the 12 midnight to 2:00am period with a significant reduction in the need to migrate to other premises.
  • .pdf Penzance Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Another.pdf (98 KB)
  • LC39/2014 Penzance Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Another ETP 82 In the normal course the Commission accepts that, whilst not provided for in the Act or the Director's policies, the granting of an ETP, where there is no trading history for the licensee, would generally not be in the public interest. However, on the basis of the circumstances of this application, where the applicant: a) is well experienced in operating licensed premises in the locality; b) has operated for many years from the same venue under the same ETP authorisations and conditions now applied for (albeit that ETP 31723 has not been active from 2008 to present); c) proposes a manner of trade and the acceptance of conditions on the ETP that are considered by the Commission to be positive contributions to factors which can mitigate the potential harm and ill-health that may arise; the Commission is of the view that in weighing the benefits against the likelihood of harm and ill health that the grant of the application may cause, the Commission finds that the public interest would be served by the grant of this application.
  • .pdf Penzance Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and Another.pdf (98 KB)
  • LC40/2011 Repertoire Wines Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Specific Comments 63 At the hearing the applicant requested the Commission to exercise its discretion in waiving the prohibition imposed under section 38(5) of the Act. The provisions of section 38(5) of the Act are clear in that if the licensing authority is not satisfied that granting the application is in the public interest, an application for the grant or removal of a licence in respect of the same premises or land cannot be made within three years after the licensing authority's decision unless the Director certifies that the proposed application is of a kind specifically different from the application that was not granted. Accordingly it is the Commission's view that it has no discretion to waive the three year period disallowing a further application in respect of the same premises or land pursuant to section 38(5) of the Act.
  • .pdf Repertoire Wines Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (3586 KB)
  • LC40/2011 Repertoire Wines Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others Discretion 58 In making its decision the Commission has had regard to the requirement of consumers. The contest between the applicant and the objectors in this regard raises the issue of how the Commission treats existing liquor outlets. Whilst the Commission does not consider an application in isolation from existing liquor outlets because of the various objects of the Act such as harm minimisation, the requirements of consumers and other public interest issues, what the Commission cannot do is to take into account the competitive impact that a new outlet would have on existing outlets.
  • .pdf Repertoire Wines Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and others.pdf (3586 KB)
  • LC44/2010 Harold Thomas James Blakeley v Director of Liquor Licensing Evidence 37 ... Merely because a venue may be located in a tourist area does not lead to an outcome that the venue will become an attraction for tourists or a facility that enhances the State's tourism industry. The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim
  • .pdf Harold Thomas James Blakeley v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (81 KB)
  • LC44/2010 Harold Thomas James Blakeley v Director of Liquor Licensing Procedural Fairness 49 ... Section 38(2) places an obligation on an applicant to satisfy the licensing authority that the grant of the application is in the public interest. It is not incumbent on the Director to determine what evidence an applicant should ultimately submit in order to discharge its obligation under section 38(2) The licensing authority, however constituted, cannot run an application, objection or intervention on behalf of a particular party as this would place the licensing authority in an unsustainable position.
  • .pdf Harold Thomas James Blakeley v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (81 KB)
  • LC44/2010 Harold Thomas James Blakeley v Director of Liquor Licensing Discretion 41 Licences should not be granted simply because an applicant 'has a good idea' or would like to establish a business involving the sale and supply of liquor.The private interests of an applicant should not be confused with the public interest. Such an approach would not be consistent with the act or the objects of the Act (refer section 5) which includes minimising alcohol-related harm and having regard to the proper development of the liquor industry.
  • .pdf Harold Thomas James Blakeley v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (81 KB)
  • LC44/2011 Woolworths Ltd v Executive Director of Public Health and Another Destination Liquor Store, Locality 76
    The Commission accepts that as a 'destination liquor store' it can be expected that purchased liquor will be consumed beyond the defined locality of 3 kilometres, which, while not adding to potential harm impacts within the locality, may still result in a wider geographic contribution of negative impacts as a consequence of alcohol consumption. However, the lack of research data relating to the spread of consumption from a destination liquor store does not allow the Commission to draw any conclusion on this aspect.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Executive Director of Public Health and Another.pdf (435 KB)
  • LC44/2011 Woolworths Ltd v Executive Director of Public Health and Another Dan Murphy's 66
    The Commission does, however, accept that the Dan Murphy's liquor store business model is well managed, offers an extensive range of products and provides a high level of responsible retailing of liquor products as referred to in 62 above.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Executive Director of Public Health and Another.pdf (435 KB)
  • LC44/2011 Woolworths Ltd v Executive Director of Public Health and Another Locality 73
    The determination of the size of the locality for the purposes of a licence application will very much depend on, amongst other things, the type of licence applied for, the nature of the business and its target market, and the size and nature of the proposed premises. Kalahari - A Taste of Africa is a relatively small liquor outlet, however, it operates in a similar market, offering specialised South African liquor and grocery products.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Executive Director of Public Health and Another.pdf (435 KB)
  • LC44/2011 Woolworths Ltd v Executive Director of Public Health and Another Locality 74
    The Commission accepts the Director's submission that the licensing authority is not constrained by a 2km radius locality when considering whether the proposed licence will cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services. Locality is only referred to in the Act in sections 38(4)(b) and 74(1)(g)(ii) relating to impact on the amenity of the locality, with the Director's policy on Public Interest Assessment stating: Generally, the size of the locality will be that which is stipulated in Specification of Locality at Attachment 2. However, depending on the nature of the application, the licensing authority may also determine a broader locality.
  • .pdf Woolworths Ltd v Executive Director of Public Health and Another.pdf (435 KB)
  • LC47/2011 Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group v Director of Liquor Licensing Contiguous 19
    The proposed Dan Murphy's store could not be considered contiguous with the existing licensed premises in any way having regard to the ordinary meaning of the word. As stated, the nearest point to the existing licensed premises is 20.85 meters. Further, in considering the Minister's second reading speech and the intent of the legislature, it was the granting of licences such as that applied for in this instance that led to the enactment of section 77(5a) of the Act, so as to stop satellite outlets from being attached to existing licences. In the Commission's opinion, the proposed Dan Murphy's would constitute a satellite outlet by virtue of the distance between the proposed new building in which it would operate and the existing buildings.
  • .pdf Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group v Director of Liquor Licensing.pdf (244 KB)
  • LC56/2011 Tahya Jade Gardner v Commissioner of Police Barring Notices 31 In assessing the particular circumstances surrounding the issue of the Barring Notice, it is necessary to determine the degree of probability or possibility that the applicant might re-offend resulting in danger to the public, the licensee or herself.
  • .pdf Tahya Jade Gardner v Commissioner of Police.pdf (173 KB)
  • Page reviewed 13 December 2021