Auld v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (No. 2)

The case of Auld v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (No. 2) was heard before the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicant, Mr. Auld, sought to challenge the decision of the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority to refuse his application for a liquor licence. The central issue before the tribunal was whether the applicant should be granted leave to adduce further evidence not previously presented to the respondent, which could potentially impact the outcome of the appeal.

The tribunal had to determine whether the new evidence could be admitted under the statutory framework governing administrative law, particularly in relation to the principles of procedural fairness and the availability of fresh evidence in appellate proceedings. The tribunal considered the nature of the evidence and the potential impact it might have on the appeal, weighing the importance of the evidence against the principles of fairness and efficiency in the administrative review process.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal held that while the primary rule was to confine the evidence to what was before the respondent at the time of their decision, there were circumstances where additional evidence could be considered. The tribunal found that the proposed evidence was relevant and could potentially affect the outcome of the appeal. It concluded that the principles of natural justice required that the new evidence be considered, but also noted that the authority should have the opportunity to respond to the new evidence. Consequently, the tribunal granted the applicant leave to adduce the specified evidence, subject to the respondent's right to respond.

The final orders of the tribunal were that no additional evidence would be considered unless specifically permitted, with the exception of the evidence filed by the applicant on 24 April and 10 May 2017, and certain further evidence proposed by the respondent, including expert evidence and updated data. This decision allowed the appeal to proceed with the inclusion of the specified new evidence, balancing the interests of both parties.