Commissioner for Fair Trading v AIA Investments Pty Ltd Trading as Playground Martini & Tapas Bar (Occupational Discipline)

[2017] ACAT 62

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

COMMISSIONER FOR FAIR TRADING v AIA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD TRADING AS PLAYGROUND MARTINI & TAPAS BAR (Occupational Discipline) [2017] ACAT 62

OR 2/2017

Catchwords:              OCCUPATIONAL DISCIPLINE – licenced premises – occupancy loading exceeded on three occasions in two months – financial penalty – public reprimand as deterrent to other licensees

Legislation cited:      ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 55

Liquor Act 2010 ss 10, 125, 187

Tribunal:                   Presidential Member M-T Daniel
  Senior Member M Brennan

Date of Orders:  2 June 2017

Date of Reasons for Decision:         16 August 2017

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          OR 2/2017

BETWEEN:

COMMISSIONER FOR FAIR TRADING

Applicant

AND:

AIA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD TRADING AS PLAYGROUND MARTINI & TAPAS BAR

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:               Presidential Member M-T Daniel
  Senior Member M Brennan

DATE:2 June 2017

CONSENT ORDER

1.The respondent is publically reprimanded.

2.The respondent is required to pay the applicant the sum of $5,000.00 by 9 June 2017.

3.The respondent is required to provide the following written undertaking by 6 June 2017.

(i)     That it will develop written policies and procedures in relation to ensuring compliance with occupancy loading - with said policies and procedures to be provided to the applicant Commissioner for Fair Trading by 2 August 2017.

(ii)     That it will train all current and new staff in relation to policies and procedures regarding compliance with occupancy loading, and records of all such training are to be maintained.

(iii)    Hard copies of all policies and procedures, and evidence of staff training by the respondent, are to be maintained and presented to the applicant the Commissioner of Fair Trading (for example to its inspectors from Access Canberra) on the applicants request.

(iv)    Each Thursday, Friday and Saturday, the walk through count of patrons on the premises will be conducted. This count will be over and above any count undertaken by the respondents door security staff. On the nights in question, the walk is to be conducted at least six times between the hours of 11:00pm and 4:00am and the results of each walk through count is to be recorded in a log book that is presented to the applicant Commissioner for Fair Trading (for example to its inspectors from Access Canberra) upon its request.

4.The hearing of 8, 9, and 13 June 2017 is vacated.

5.Subpoenas OR2/2017 (c) - (m) inclusive are each discharged.

……………Signed…………..

Presidential Member M-T Daniel

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application for disciplinary action against AIA Investments Pty Ltd as licensee under section 187 of the Liquor Act 2010. An application may be brought under that section if the Commissioner for Fair Trading (Commissioner) believes on reasonable grounds that a ground for occupational discipline exists.

2. In this case, the Commissioner asserts that the respondent contravened section 125 of the Liquor Act 2010. Section 125 states:

125Offence—exceed occupancy loading

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person is a licensee; and

(b)the number of people in a public area at the licensed premises is more than the number allowed under the occupancy loading for the area.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person is a permit‑holder; and

(b)the commissioner has decided an occupancy loading for a public area at the permitted premises; and

(c)the number of people in the public area is more than the number allowed under the occupancy loading for the area.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3)An offence against this section is a strict liability offence.

3.       The matter was listed for hearing over three days on 8, 9 and 13 June 2017. However, on 1 June 2017, the applicant filed a statement of agreed facts and an application for interim or other orders seeking, on behalf of both parties, that consent orders be made.

4.       The ‘Agreed Facts’ are set out below as Annexure B to these reasons for decision. In short, at all material times covered by the application for occupational discipline, the respondent was the licensee of the premises with licence number 13008741. The directors of the respondent over this period, and at the time of this decision, were Antonino James Arena and Illya Mastoris.

5.       Prior to granting a licence to the respondent, the Commissioner decided the occupancy loading for each public area at the premises. The ‘occupancy loading’ for a public area means the maximum number of people allowed in the area. The applicant decided the occupancy loading of the premises was:

·82 persons in indoor Area A

·8 persons in outdoor Area B

·10 persons in outdoor Area C

6. The occupancy loading is necessary to ensure the safety of all people within the licensed premises, including patrons and staff. In making a decision about the occupancy loading the Commissioner is required to consider the recommendation of the Chief Officer of the ACT Fire and Rescue Service and the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

7. Section 10 of the Act provides that a decision-maker must have regard to harm minimisation and community safety principles. Paragraph (f) of these principles requires that the safety, health and welfare of people using the licensed premises should not be put at risk.

8.       Commander Brian Talbot, of ACT Fire and Rescue, provided an expert report dated 11 April 2017 which was filed and served by the applicant in these proceedings. He opined that the greatest risk to occupants when the occupancy load is exceeded is that they may be exposed to the harmful products of combustion for a longer period of time than they otherwise would be due to the increased exit times associated with an increased population in the event of a fire. Commander Talbot secondly noted the risk to fire fighters to undertake rescue functions is increased in the event of the occupancy load being exceeded.

9.       The parties agree that members of the AFP attended the premises on 20 March 2016, 3 April 2016 and 23 April 2016 for the purpose of counting the number of occupants within the premises. On all three occasions the occupancy loading of the premises was contravened by approximately 23, 36 and 27 people, respectively.[1]

[1] The parties agree the loading was exceeded, although the exact number cannot be known with certainty

10.     The Tribunal notes that these three contraventions in 2016 follow two other contraventions, once in 2014 and once in 2015. On 2 February 2015 the respondent was issued a written warning in relation to an occupancy loading breach occurring in late 2014, and on 24 October 2015 the respondent was issued a fine of $5,500 for a further occupancy loading breach.

11.The Tribunal notes and considers it essential that Mr Arena has now put in place additional operations and procedures to ensure occupancy loading compliance. This includes an extra security officer to monitor the rear door and toilet area to ensure no one using these facilities can gain access to the premises. Mr Arena has also undertaken that he or a member of his staff will perform an occupancy count every 15-20 minutes and that these results will be provided to the security officer at the front door in order to control the number of patrons entering the premises.

12. On considering the ‘Agreed Facts’ filed by the parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent contravened section 125 of the Liquor Act 2010 on three occasions being 20 March 2016, 3 April 2016 and 23 April 2016 and consequently, there are grounds for occupational discipline in relation to the respondent.

13. The proposed consent orders are within the powers provided by section 66 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 and seem to the Tribunal to be appropriate, after a consideration of the facts of the matter and the factors set out in section 65 of that Act. The Tribunal notes the undertaking to improve processes and policies in relation to occupancy loading, and to train staff and monitor compliance. It is also important to note that the proposed fine of $5000 is the maximum amount of fine that can be imposed by the Tribunal upon a corporation.[2]

[2] Section 4 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation 2009

14.Accordingly, the Tribunal made orders that include a public reprimand, that the respondent pay $5000 to the Commissioner within seven days and provide a written undertaking within two days to the Commissioner which covers the steps that will be employed to ensure future compliance with the premises’ occupancy loading.

15.     The public reprimand is set out at Annexure A to these reasons.

………………………………..

Presidential Member M-T Daniel

Delivered for and on behalf of the Tribunal

ANNEXURE A

PUBLIC REPRIMAND

To AIA Investments Pty Ltd ABN 154 761 118 t/a Playground Martini and Tapas Bar, 1/25 Garema Place, Canberra (the premises), the Tribunal has found that you have breached section 125(1) of the Liquor Act 2010 (ACT) (the Act). This section provides that a licensee commits an offence if the number of people at the licensed premises is more than the number allowed under the occupancy loading of the area.

Clearly, the licensee of premises puts its patrons and employees at significant risk when the occupancy levels determined by the Commissioner are exceeded. These risks are heightened in premises where some of the patrons may be intoxicated or sufficiently affected by alcohol to impair their ability to quickly vacate the premises in events such as fire, flood, or siege. An occupancy loading is not a mere technicality or theoretic figure, it is a conclusion reached after expert consideration which sets the point at which premises may become unsafe.

In being granted a licence AIA Investments Pty Ltd, you are entrusted to ensure that occupancy levels for the licensed premises are not exceeded. This is to ensure the ongoing safety of your patrons and employees. While you may engage independent security companies to assist you in discharging this responsibility, the obligation is and remains yours, pursuant to the issued licence.

You must put in place systems which will reliably ensure that the occupancy loadings are not exceeded in the future, and you have undertaken to do so. You have also now been fined the maximum amount that a corporation can be fined. You should be aware that any future breach of your obligations will necessarily call into question your suitability, and the suitability of persons associated with AIA Investments Pty Ltd, to hold a licence under the Liquor Act 2010.

Your breach of your obligations has been treated seriously for the protection of the public and your employees, both by ensuring that you meet your legal obligations in the future and by deterring others from breaching the Act.

ANNEXURE B

IN THE CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE      )

TRIBUNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN           )    OR 2/17

CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

COMMISSIONER FOR FAIR TRADING

Applicant

AIA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
TRADING AS: PLAYGROUND MARTINI AND TAPAS BAR

Respondent

FACTS AS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES

“AGREED FACTS”

INTRODUCTION

1. The Commissioner for Fair Trading (Commissioner) is the applicant for disciplinary action against AIA Investments Pty Ltd t/a Playground Martini and Tapas Bar (Respondent), pursuant to section 187 (1) Liquor Act 2010 (ACT) (Liquor Act).

2. The Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds the Respondent has contravened section 125(1) of the Liquor Act on 20 March 2016, 3 April 2016 and 23 April 2016.

3. Pursuant to section 33(1)(g) Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 (ACT), the Commissioner is to undertake the functions legislated in the Liquor Act.[3]

[3] ‘Commissioner’ is defined in the Liquor Act dictionary as meaning the Commissioner for Fair Trading.

LICENCE BACKGROUND

4. For the period 1 December 2015 till 30 November 2016, the Respondent was licenced pursuant to the Liquor Act to supply liquor in open containers between the hours of 7am and 4am at 1/25 Garema Place, Canberra, ACT 2600.[4] The Respondent is the licensee for the purpose of the licence.

[4] Licence number 13008741. Applicant’s document A1

5. The licence provided for the Respondent to trade as Playground Martini and Tapas Bar (licence).[5] The licence for this period was a renewal of a previous licence.

[5] Licence number 13008741. Applicant’s document A1

6. The licence was subject to a number of conditions, including those in section 31 of the Liquor Act and schedule 1 of the Liquor Regulation 2010 (ACT). Relevantly, a condition of the licence is compliance with occupancy loading.

OCCUPANCY LOADING OF PREMISES

7. Pursuant to section 28 of the Liquor Act, if the Commissioner decides to issue a licence for the consumption of liquor at particular premises, a decision must also be made as to the occupancy loading for each public area within the premises.

8. Section 83 of the Liquor Act defines “occupancy loading” a:

‘Occupancy loading for a public area at licensed premises or permitted premises, means the maximum number of people allowed in the area.’

9. Section 84 of the Liquor Act defines “public area” as:

‘Public area, at licensed premises or permitted premises, means an area at the premises that is open to the public.’

10. The occupancy loading is necessary to ensure the safety of people within the licensed premises. The occupancy loading includes staff in the public area.

11. Sections 85 and 86 of the Liquor Act require that, in deciding the occupancy loading for the public areas of particular premises, the Commissioner must consider the recommendation of the Chief Officer of the ACT Fire and Rescue Service (Chief Fire Officer) as to the number of persons who may safely be accommodated inside the area. Consideration must also be given to the Building Code of Australia. A decision of the Commissioner on the occupancy loading of a public area must not exceed that recommended for the area by the Chief Fire Officer.

12. A person commits a strict liability offence if they are a licensee and the number of people in a public area at the licensed premises is more than the number allowed under the occupancy loading for the area.[6] The maximum penalty for the offence is 50 penalty units.[7]

[6] Section 125(1) Liquor Act

[7] A penalty unit is defined in section 133 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT). For an offence committed by an individual it is $150; for an offence committed by a corporation $750.

OCCUPANCY LOADING FOR THE RESPONDENT - Playground Martini and Tapas Bar

13. The licence relates to premises located at 1/25 Garema Place, Canberra, ACT (premises). The business trading at the premises trades under the name the “Playground Martini and Tapas Bar”.

14. The premises are at street level with access from Garema Place. The premises are single level with the primary entrance/exit way at the front of the premises, and an exit at the rear of the premises. For the purposes of licence and occupancy loading, the premises are categorised into 3 areas, namely areas “A”, “B” and “C”.[8]

[8] Refer to document A2 for a plan of the premises showing the different areas.

15. Area A can be described as the main bar area and is the largest area at the premises. It is physically located wholly within the building housing the premises. The front entrance to the premises is at the front of Area A. Area A is approximately 22.38 metres long and 5.6 metres wide. It contains the bar, cool storage and toilet facilities along with some tables and chairs and a dance floor area.

16. Area B can be described as a rectangular area that sits immediately adjacent to the front of Area A. Area B sits in Garema Place, outside the physical building that houses Area A. Area B has one common boundary with Area A. Access to Area B is through Area A. Area B is approximately 3.35 metres wide and 2.5 metres deep.

17. Area C is a rectangular area that sits within Garema Place. It is separated from Areas A and B and shares no common boundaries with them. It is approximately 2 metres away from the front of Area B. Area C measures 4.65 metres wide and 3 metres deep.

18. On 1 December 2014, following an application for the respondent to amend the licence for the premises, the Commissioner determined the occupancy loading for the premises.[9] This was determined as:

Area A – 82 persons

Area B – 8 persons

Area C – 10 persons

[9] The Chief Fire Officer recommendation for area A was 89 persons (see document A4). The occupancy loading for Area A does not exceed this recommendation. 

ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS

Contravention on 20 March 2016

19. On 20 March 2016 members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) attended the premises at approximately 12.20am for the purposes of conducting a count of the occupants within the premises.

20. Constable Kafer and Fawkner entered the premises for the purpose of the count. A security officer was informed the AFP were to conduct an occupancy count of the premises. Constable Kafer observed an occupancy loading sign on the front window of the premises. It provided the occupancy for the internal area was 82 persons. The occupancy stated on the sign for the outdoor area (Area B) was 8 persons.[10]

[10] Displaying such signage was in compliance with a licence condition.

21. Constables Power and Hotchkis entered the alleyway that runs along the rear of the premises and stood at the back door of the premises for the purpose of ensuring no persons entered the premises from the rear door during the period of the count.[11]

[11] Refer to documents A7 and A9.

22. Constables Power and Hotchkis observed two people exit the premises from the rear door during the period of the count. These people were identified as the manager of the premises, Mr Antonio Arena and a security officer. Constable Hotchkis heard some of a brief conversation between Mr Arena and the security officer and recalls that it related to the premises being over capacity.[12]

[12] Refer to document A9.

23. After the brief conversation between Mr Arena and the security officer, police observed them to re-enter the premises via the rear door.

24. Constables Sutherland and Mokrij attended the front of the premises and ensured that during the period of the count no persons entered the premises through the front door. No persons entered via the front door during the period of the count.

25. Constables Kafer and Fawkner each had hand held four digit counters. Both counters were set at 0000. The officers were located at the front of Area A and commenced counting the occupants of the premises.[13]

[13] It should be noted that the count does not include patrons in the toilet areas of the premises or staff members behind the bar area.

26. Constable Kafer walked in a direct path down the centre of Area A. He was aware Constable Fawkner was walking behind him. As he walked down the centre of Area A, Constable Kafer clicked the counter each time he saw a head as he walked past it. When Constable Kafer reached the rear of Area A, the counter read 113.[14]

[14] See document A5. It should be noted there is a discrepancy in paragraph 9 of Constable Kafer’s statement. He initially refers to the counter reading 107, and then refers to 113. Constable Kafer’s official police notebook refers to 113 persons in the first count and it is submitted the reference to 107 is a typographical error.

27. Constable Fawkner states he followed the Standard Operating Procedure for Determining Loading of Licenced Premises, namely counting the heads of patrons as he walked past them. When he reached the end of Area A, Constable Fawkner’s counter read 107 persons.

28. Constable Kafer and Fawkner then reset their counters to 0000 and proceeded to walk from the rear of Area A to the front of Area A and perform a further count. At the conclusion of the count Constable Kafer’s counter read 114 and Constable Fawkner’s read 112.

29. Constable Fawkner noted there appeared to be a significant crowd in the premises and movement throughout the premises was difficult. Constable Kafer had noticed that the venue was densely occupied and was difficult to move through and that the crowd was slow moving due to the number of people.

30. At the conclusion of the two counts Constable Fawkner approached the security officer at the front door and asked how many people he had inside. The security officer showed Constable Kafer a counter that displayed 90. Constable Kafer then informed the security officer he had found the premises to be 23 people over the occupancy loading and that no further people were to be allowed to enter the premises until at least 23 people had left and that after that the number would need to be managed on a one for one basis.

31. Constable Kafer was then approached by a male who identified himself as the manager of the premises. Constable Kafer indicated the premises were over occupancy loading and that the matter would be reported to the Alcohol Crime Sergeant. Constable Kafer remained in attendance at the front entrance until the required number people had left the premises.

Contravention on 3 April 2016

32. At approximately 1.45am on 3 April 2016, AFP officers attended outside the premises. Constables Yanes and Power observed there to be a large number of patrons within the premises. Constable Power suspected the premises where over occupancy loading.[15]

[15] See documents A11 and A12

33. At approximately 1.48am Constable Yanes and Power entered the premises to conduct a count of the number of persons within the premises.

34. At this time Constable Murphy stood at the front door of the premises with the purposes of stopping any persons from entering the premises during the counting period. Constable Murphy provides no person entered the premises during the time of the counts. Constable Murphy also counted the number of persons that exited the premises during the counting period.[16]

[16] See document A13

35. No AFP officer was located at the rear door to the premises during the counting period.

36. Constable Yanes used a counter to count the number of people in the premises. At the end of the first walkthrough the counter read 135. Constable Yanes then conducted a second walkthrough at the conclusion of which the counter read 135.

37. Constable Power used a counter and counted 140 people on his first count. After resetting the counter, in the second walkthrough Constable Power counted 142.

38. Constable Power then conducted another walk through and counted 135.

39. After this count Constable Yanes and Power spoke to Mr Antonio Arena and showed him the counter at 135. He appeared shocked. Up to this time Constable Murphy had observed seven people leave the premises.

40. Constable Power then conducted a further walkthrough that resulted in a count of 125. On a further count, Constable Yanes counted 125. During this period Constable Murphy had observed one person leave the premises via the front door.

41. Constable Power then spoke to Mr Arena and Mr Illya Mastoris telling them the occupancy loading is 82 and that it must not be exceeded. Mr Mastoris stated to Constable Power that their security officer had a count of 94 persons.[17] Mr Mastoris told Constable Yanes he would attempt to remove patrons from the premises but this would take time.

[17] See document A12. Access Canberra is an ACT government agency that is responsible for administering compliance with the Liquor Act and other legislation for which the Commissioner is responsible.

42. Constable Yanes observed whilst in the premises a large number of patrons finding it difficult to walk through the area.

43. On 21 April 2016 Access Canberra wrote a letter to Mr Antonio Arena and AIA Investments Pty Ltd.[18] In this letter - the alleged contraventions of 20 March and 3 April 2016 were discussed and a written response was requested addressing the contraventions.

[18] See document A16

Contravention on 23 April 2016

44. At approximately 11.10pm on 23 April 2016 AFP officers attended the premises for the purpose of undertaking an occupancy count. Constables Lai Thackeray and Mathew Brooke entered the premises for the purpose of conducting the count.

45. Senior Constable Power spoke to the security officer at the entrance to the premises. The security officer told Senior Constable Power there were 90 people inside the premises. The security officer was informed the AFP officers were going to perform a count of the premises and that no one was permitted to enter the premises.[19]

[19] See document A15

46. Before commencing the count, Constable Lai Thackeray set the counter to zero. He then proceeded to walk through the premises and counted the occupants. Constable Lai Thackeray counted whilst moving forward through the crowd, counting people in his view before him.[20] At the conclusion of the count, Constable Lai Thackeray had counted 116 people.

[20] See document A14

47. During the period of the count Senior Constable Power observed 16 people leave the premises via the front door. Constables Lai Thackeray and Mathew Brooke then spoke to Senior Constable Power. Constable Lai Thackeray informed him he counted 116 people inside.

48. Senior Constable Power informed the security officer the premises were over the assigned occupancy and that at least a further 10 people needed to leave the premises.[21] Senior Constable Power counted a further four people leave the premises but was then required to attend to duties elsewhere.

[21] This number was based on the reasoning that Constable Lai Thackeray had counted 116, the 16 people that had bene counted as leaving would have been included in that 116, leaving 100 inside the premises and when Areas A and B were combined 90 was the maximum number of people allowed in the premises.

SHOW CAUSE PROCESS

49. On 26 April 2016 an email was sent from Senior Investigator, Access Canberra, Drazen Persic to Mr Nino Arena.[22] Attached to the email was the letter dated 21 April 2016 that had previously been sent Mr Arena and AIA Investments Pty Ltd.[23]

[22] See document A17

[23] See document A16

50. The email of 26 April 2016 referred to the attached letter and informed Mr Arena of the further alleged contravention on 23 April 2016. It requested a response from Mr Arena to the letter and the third in time contravention by 5 May 2016.

51. A letter dated 5 May 2016 under the hand of Mr Nino Arena, for Playground Martini and Tapas Bar was emailed to Mr Persic at Access Canberra on Thursday 5 May 2016.[24] The letter from Mr Arena addressed each of the three alleged contraventions.[25]

[24] See document A19 for the email stream.

[25] See document A18

52. As to the alleged contravention on 20 March 2016, Mr Arena recalled AFP attended the premises on the evening and conducting a count. He disagreed with the count stated in the letter and that the occupancy loading was exceeded by 13 people, not 25. He further provided he was not given the opportunity to perform his own count. He recalled 13 people were removed from the premises, after which he conducted his own count and the numbers were below the occupancy loading.

53. As to the alleged contravention on 3 April 2016, he again recalled police attending the venue and conducting a count. He claimed he was not made aware of the premises exceeding the occupancy loading. He specifically recalled standing at the front door and being told by police the venue was not exceeding it occupancy loading. He conceded that police may have attended at another time that evening that he was not aware of and that he was not aware of any contravention and not given the opportunity to conduct his own count.

54. As to the alleged contravention on 23 April 2016 he recalled police attending on the evening to conduct a count. He further recalled his security officer informed him the venue was 20 people over the occupancy loading.

55. Mr Arena then provides the same security officer was working on the three nights in questions and that on 23 April 2016 after Mr Arena was made aware the premises were over occupancy loading he terminated the services of the security officer and his role was taken over by the owner of the security firm.

56. Mr Arena also stated he had met with the owner of the security company and put additional operations and procedures in place to ensure occupancy loading compliance. He also stated that an additional security officer was employed for the venue to monitor the rear door and toilet area of the premises to ensure no one used this area to gain access to the venue, which was above what was required under the licence.

57. In terms of occupancy counts, Mr Arena provided that he or a member of his staff perform occupancy counts every 15 – 20 minutes, the results of which are provided to the security officer at the front door for the purposes of controlling the number of people allowed in. Mr Arena indicated that a major part of monitoring numbers in the venue relied upon the security officer at the front door and that this may be subject to human error. He also stated that since terminating the security officer present on the nights in questions, the running count has been more accurate, and such had been noted to him by AFP officers.

PREVIOUS NON-COMPLIANCE

58. On 2 February 2015, the Commissioner issued a written warning to the Respondent. This related to an allegation of an occupancy loading breach on 22 November 2014.[26] At this time the occupancy loading was 70 people. The allegation was there were 89 people in the premises, exceeding the occupancy loading by 19 people.

[26] See document A21

59. AFP has also issued an infringement notice on the Respondent. This was for exceeding the occupancy loading of the premises on 24 October 2015.[27] This infringement notice was not contested and the fine of $5,500 was paid.

[27] See document A22

PRESENT CONTRAVENTIONS

60. The three contraventions are conceded by the Respondent. The exact numbers of people above the occupancy loading cannot be precisely determined, but it is accepted by the Respondent that on each occasion it was more than the occupancy loading allowed.