Fahey & Ors v David Jones (Australia) Pty Ltd

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, brought by the applicants, S.A. & H.T. Raphael Investments, against the respondent, David Jones (Australia) Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from the grant of a general facility licence under the *Liquor Licensing Act* of South Australia. The core of the application for special leave focused on the role of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia when hearing an appeal pursuant to section 23 of that Act.

The applicants contended that the Full Court erred in its approach to the evidence presented before the Licensing Court. They argued that the Full Court improperly substituted its own view of the evidence for that of the Licensing Court, despite section 59 of the *Liquor Licensing Act* vesting a wide discretion in the Licensing Court. The applicants asserted that the Licensing Court had exercised this discretion properly, and the majority of the Full Court had interfered with it based on their own assessment of the evidence. The applicants also argued that even if the Licensing Court had erred in its interpretation of sections 44 and 63 of the Act, as the Full Court suggested, the Licensing Court had also exercised a separate, wide discretion under section 59, which it would have exercised to refuse the licence for reasons independent of the statutory interpretation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Full Court had correctly exercised its appellate function in reviewing the decision of the Licensing Court. Specifically, the Court needed to consider whether the Full Court had impermissibly interfered with the Licensing Court's exercise of discretion under section 59 of the *Liquor Licensing Act*, or whether any errors in statutory interpretation by the Licensing Court justified the Full Court's intervention. The applicants argued that the Full Court's decision was based on its own view of the evidence rather than a proper legal assessment of the Licensing Court's discretionary powers.