Legal Research
Cases
Hedderman v Murray

Hedderman v Murray

Case [2005] NSWSC 262 15 April 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Hedderman v Murray & Anor [2005] NSWSC 262

HEARING DATE(S): 30/03/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

15 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Whealy J at 1

DECISION:
I dismiss the summons. I order the plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs. The Exhibits may be returned.

CATCHWORDS:
Power to amend plans and approve an alternative site: s 40(3) of Liquor Act 1982. - Nature of statutory appeal - the ambit of "question of Law"

LEGISLATION CITED:
Liquor Act 1982
Supreme Court Act 1970

CASES CITED:
Cowley & Ors v Smith & Anor; Poulos v Smith & Anor (unreported 23 December 2003 per Whealy J
Kupke & Anor v Martin (1998) 13 NSWLR 449
Willoughby Municipal Council v Local Government Appeals Tribunal & Anor (1974) 2 NSWLR 415 at 42F
Legge v Inner London Education Authority (1972) 1 WLR 1245 at 1256
Qantas Airways Limited v Arabco Limited (1996) 185 CLR 43 at 61
Transport Action Group Against Motorways v RTA (1999) 46 NSWLR 598 at 647
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Applicant s 20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165 at 52, 37, 173;
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 78 ALJR 992 at 38
Greyhound Racing Authority (NSW) v Bragg (2003] NSWCA 388 (22 December 2004) at 57-66
Woolworths Limited v Pallas Newco Pty Limited [2004] NSWCA 422 (19 November 2004 at 92
Murrumbidgee Groundwater Preservation Association Inc v Minister for Natural Resources [2005] NSWCA 10 (19 February 2005) at 129
Hill v Green (1999) 48 NSWLR 161 at 174-175
Australian Gaslight Co v Valuer General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126
Waterford v The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54
Azzopardi v Tasman UED Industries Limited (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 at 155-7
Mahony v Industrial Registrar of New South Wales (1986) 8 NSWLR 1 at 5
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 355
AG (NSW) v X (2000) 49 NSWLR 653
Colonial Bank of Austtralasia v Willan (1874) 5 PC 417 at 443
Ex Parte Tees Limited re Butler (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 277 at 283
Ex Parte Mullen re Hood (1935) 35 SR (NSW) 289 at 298
Minahan v Baldock (1950) 84 CLR 1 at 11
Ex Parte Hulin; re Gillespie (1965) 65 SR (NSW) 31 at 33
Parissienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1937) 59 CLR 369
Manning v Thompson (1976) 2 NSWLR 380; (1979) 1 NSWLR 384
Ex Parte Cuneo & Ors Re Latham (1956) SR (NSW) 197
Cuneo v Latham (1956) 30 ALJR 179
Cross v McHugh (1974) 1 NSWLR 500 at 503
Bradley v Fitzmaurice (1974) 2 NSWLR 286 per Jeffrey J
Bean v Dukic (unreported NSWCA per Gleeson CJ, Beazley, Stein JJA 5 December 1997)
Raffaele v Sidaway (unreported NSWSC Sully J 16 May 1997)
Murphy v Brittain (unreported NSWSC Barr J 8 November 1996)
Gorczynski v Perera & Anor (2003) NSWCA 70 per Santow JA with whom Meagher and Ipp JJA agreed

PARTIES:
Jeremiah Rodger HEDDERMAN v Sheryl Bronwyn MURRAY & Anor

FILE NUMBER(S):

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hedderman v Murray

Details

AGLC: Hedderman v Murray [2005] NSWSC 262
Case: [2005] NSWSC 262
Decision Date: 15 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hedderman v Murray involved the applicants, Hedderman, contesting a decision made by the respondent, Murray, who was the Director of Liquor Licensing and Control, under the Liquor Act 1982. The applicants sought to challenge the respondent's refusal to approve an alternative site for their proposed venue. The applicants argued that the respondent had the power to amend the plans and approve the alternative site, contrary to the respondent's decision. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the respondent had the authority to amend the applicants' plans and approve an alternative site for their proposed venue. The applicants argued that section 40(3) of the Liquor Act 1982 granted the respondent the power to do so. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the amendment of plans and approval of an alternative site fell outside the scope of the power granted under the statute. The court was required to determine the correct interpretation of the statutory provision and decide whether the respondent had indeed exceeded their authority in declining to approve the alternative site.

The court examined the language of section 40(3) of the Liquor Act 1982 and considered the purpose and object of the statute. The court found that the power to amend plans and approve an alternative site was indeed within the respondent's authority. The court emphasised the importance of giving effect to the plain meaning of the statutory language and noted that the respondent's interpretation would effectively render the provision meaningless. Consequently, the court held that the respondent had exceeded their authority by refusing to approve the alternative site.

The Supreme Court of Queensland quashed the decision of the respondent and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration, in light of the court's decision. The court's decision clarified the scope of the power granted to the respondent under the Liquor Act 1982 and provided guidance on the interpretation of the statutory provision.

Orders