Gardener and Ors v Chief Executive, Office of Liquor & Gaming Regulation and Anor

The applicants, Gardener and others, sought an extension of time to bring their applications for judicial review of decisions made by the Chief Executive of the Office of Liquor & Gaming Regulation. The decisions in question involved the granting of an Adult Entertainment Permit and a Commercial Other Subsidiary On-premises (Entertainment) License and Extended Hours Approval under the Liquor Act 1992. The applicants argued that the decisions were flawed and sought judicial review well after the statutory time limits had expired. The court was required to determine whether the applications for extensions of time were warranted and whether the member of the public had standing to apply for review.

The court examined the grounds for the applications for extensions of time and found them to be insufficient. It held that the applicants had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. Furthermore, the court determined that the member of the public did not have standing to bring the applications for review, as the decisions in question were not of public interest. Additionally, the court found the petition submitted by the applicants to be ineffective. Consequently, the court dismissed both the applications for extensions of time and the applications for judicial review.

The court ordered that the applications for extensions of time be dismissed and that the applications to review be dismissed. This decision upheld the statutory time limits for seeking judicial review and reinforced the principles of standing and petition effectiveness. The dismissals ensured that the administrative decisions of the Chief Executive were not subject to judicial review due to the lateness of the applications and the lack of standing of the applicants.