Granville Hotel Operations Pty Ltd v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority

Granville Hotel Operations Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (the Authority) to refuse its application for a reduction of the mandatory shutdown period for gaming machines. The applicant argued that the Authority had misconstrued a Ministerial Guideline when determining its application. The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, constituted by Bell CJ, Kirk JA, and Griffiths AJA.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Authority had erred in law by misinterpreting the Ministerial Guideline, specifically concerning the meaning of the term "venues" within the Guideline. The applicant contended that the term "venues" should be interpreted to include the singular, meaning the Guideline could apply to a single venue. Further, the Court was asked to consider whether the Authority was wrong to reject the application on the basis of its interpretation of the Guideline. The interplay between the common law rules of statutory interpretation and the drafting of legislative instruments, including the application of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) to Ministerial Guidelines, was also a key consideration.

The Court reasoned that the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) applied to the Ministerial Guideline, and under section 8(c) of that Act, the singular is to be taken to include the plural. Therefore, the term "venues" in the Guideline was capable of encompassing a single venue. The Court found that the Authority had erred in law by failing to consider this interpretation and consequently misconstrued the Ministerial Guideline.

In matter number 2023/158659, leave to appeal was granted. In matter number 2022/340134, the appeal was dismissed with costs.