Cooper v Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming

Cooper v Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming involved an application for review of a decision relating to a liquor licence application. The applicant, Cooper, sought to have certain evidence considered by the Tribunal that was not presented to the decision maker, the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Tribunal should grant leave for the consideration of new evidence that came into existence after the decision was made, as per the Liquor Act 1992.

The court examined the definition of new evidence and the criteria for granting leave under section 34(1) of the Liquor Act. It considered whether the applicant did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known of the new evidence prior to the decision. The court also assessed whether it would be unfair not to allow the applicant to present this new evidence. In reaching its decision, the court noted that while the definition of new evidence might exclude evidence that came into existence after the decision, the terms of section 34(1) did not necessarily preclude the consideration of such evidence if it met the criteria for leave.

The court concluded that leave should be granted for certain documents to be considered by the Tribunal, including specific reports and correspondence, as they met the criteria for new evidence and it would be unfair not to allow their consideration. However, leave was refused for other evidence, such as certain correspondence and advertisements, as they did not meet the criteria or were not new evidence. Certain documents, including the Liquor Report Queensland Ombudsman 2013, were identified as being before the decision maker when the decision was made, thus not requiring leave for their consideration.

The final orders of the court granted leave for certain documents to be considered, refused leave for others, and noted that some documents did not require leave as they were already before the decision maker.