Practice and procedure - Appeal - Appeals against conviction imposed by Magistrate for contraventions of the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA) - Corporate licensee- Contravention of liquor licence by agent of licensee - Whether a corporate licensee is deemed to have committed an offence committed by a natural person who is an employee or agent - Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), s 165

Whether employee liable for offence deemed to have been committed by agent - Whether defence that sufficient direction or supervision had been given was open on the evidence - Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), s 164, s 101

Legislation:

Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), s 95, s 96, s 101, s 110, s 164, s 165

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant               :     Mr P L Fraser
Second Appellant          :     Mr P L Fraser
Third Appellant             :     Mr P L Fraser
Respondent:     Mr J F O'Sullivan

Solicitors:

First Appellant               :     Monaghan & Associates
Second Appellant          :     Monaghan & Associates
Third Appellant             :     Monaghan & Associates
Respondent:     State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Holden v Sainken, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970700; 12 December 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Anthony Hayes Douglas-Brown v Commissioner of Police (1995) 13 WAR 441
Australasian Films Ltd [1921] 29 CLR 195
Bropho v Western Australia (1991) 171 CLR 1
Cervantes Pty Ltd v State Energy Commission of Western Australia (1991) 5 WAR 355
Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370
Highfield v Alfon Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 174
Holden v Sainken, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970700; 12 December 1997
Jackson v Dyball (1993) 74 A Crim R 10
Kelly v Kjellgren (1966) WAR 149
Leonnard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705
Mathews v Foggitt Jones Ltd (1925) 37 CLR 455
Mills v Meeking (1990) 45 A Crim R 373
Milne v Thirsty Point Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 100
Mousell Brothers Ltd v London and North-Western Railway Co [1917] 2 KB 836
O'Dea v Glendenning, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930599; 26 June 1992
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (1972) AC 153
Thompson v His Honour Judge Byrne & Ors (1999) 73 ALJR 642
Tiger Nominees Pty Ltd v State Pollution Control Commission (1992) 58 A Crim R 428
Tomazin v Ward, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970023; 6 February 1997
Trade Practice Commission v Gillette Co (No 2) 118 ALR 280
Waugh v Kippen (1986) 64 ALR 195

TEMPLEMAN J: This is an appeal by Belel Pty Ltd, Mr Brian Mark Brennan and Mr Russell Barry Parnham, against convictions imposed in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Belel Pty Ltd v Baxter

Details

AGLC: Belel Pty Ltd v Baxter [2001] WASCA 225
Case: [2001] WASCA 225
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Belel Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal against the conviction imposed by a Magistrate for contraventions of the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA). The respondent, Baxter, was an employee of Belel Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the corporate licensee was deemed to have committed an offence by a natural person who was an employee or agent, as well as whether the employee was liable for an offence deemed to have been committed by an agent. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether a corporate licensee could be held responsible for offences committed by an employee or agent. This involved interpreting sections 165 and 164 of the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA). The court also needed to determine whether the respondent, Baxter, could raise a defence that sufficient direction or supervision had been provided, based on the evidence presented. The court considered the legislative framework and the facts of the case to resolve these issues.

The court found that under section 165 of the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), a corporate licensee could indeed be held responsible for offences committed by its agents or employees. This was because the provision made it clear that the corporate licensee was accountable for actions taken by its representatives. The court also held that the respondent, Baxter, could not successfully argue that sufficient direction or supervision had been given, given the evidence presented. The court's interpretation of the legislation and the evidence led to the conclusion that the appeal was not well-founded.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction remained in place. The court's decision reinforced the accountability of corporate licensees for the actions of their employees or agents under the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA).

Orders