HIGHFIELD -v- ALFON PTY LTD [2000] WASCA 174

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 174
Case No:	SJA:1010/2000	Heard:	13 JUNE 2000
Coram:	HEENAN J	Delivered:	28/06/00
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed. Remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for re-trial
PDF Version

Parties:	ANDREW LESLIE HIGHFIELD ALFON PTY LTD ALLAN RAYMOND CARLYON DAVID NIEL RANDALL
Catchwords:	Liquor licensing Licensee Manager Condition of licence not to permit performance by person immodestly dressed "Permit" Extent to which knowledge is necessary Actual or constructive knowledge No finding by Magistrate as to constructive knowledge
Legislation:	Liquor Licensing Act 1998 (WA)
Case References:	Douglas-Brown v Commissioner of Police (1995) 13 WAR 441 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 Jackson v Dyball (1993) 74 A Crim R 10 Holden v Sainken, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 970700; 12 December 1997

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : HIGHFIELD -v- ALFON PTY LTD [2000] WASCA 174 CORAM : HEENAN J HEARD : 13 JUNE 2000 DELIVERED : 28 JUNE 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1010 of 2000 BETWEEN : ANDREW LESLIE HIGHFIELD

Appellant

AND

ALFON PTY LTD

Respondent

FILE NO/S : SJA 1011 of 2000 BETWEEN : ALLAN RAYMOND CARLYON

Appellant

AND

DAVID NIEL RANDALL

Respondent

Catchwords:

Liquor licensing - Licensee - Manager - Condition of licence not to permit performance by person immodestly dressed - "Permit" - Extent to which knowledge is necessary - Actual or constructive knowledge - No finding by Magistrate as to constructive knowledge

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Liquor Licensing Act 1998 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed. Remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for re-trial

Representation:

SJA 1010 of 2000

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr G T W Tannin & Ms B Murray

Respondent : Mr B J Singleton QC & Mr W B Harris

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Crown Solicitor

Respondent : W B Harris

SJA 1011 of 2000

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr G T W Tannin & Ms B Murray

Respondent : Mr B J Singleton QC & Mr W B Harris

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Crown Solicitor

Respondent : W B Harris

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Douglas-Brown v Commissioner of Police (1995) 13 WAR 441

Case(s) also cited:

Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531

(Page 3)

Jackson v Dyball (1993) 74 A Crim R 10
Holden v Sainken, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 970700; 12 December 1997

(Page 4)

1 HEENAN J: The respondent Mr Randall and his wife are directors of Alfon Pty Ltd, the other respondent. The company is the lessee and licensee of The Paddington Ale House at Mount Hawthorn and Mr Randall is the person approved as manager under s 35B of the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA). On 31 December 1999 in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth the learned Magistrate dismissed a complaint against each of the respondents. They had been charged under s 110(1) of the Act with contravening a…

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 Highfield v Alfon Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Highfield v Alfon Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 174
Case: [2000] WASCA 174
Decision Date: 28 JUNE 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in Highfield v Alfon Pty Ltd were the appellant, Highfield, and the respondent, Alfon Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the interpretation of a condition in a liquor licence prohibiting the performance by individuals who were immodestly dressed. Highfield, the licensee, was accused of breaching this condition by allowing a performer dressed in an immodest manner to perform at the licensed premises. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had appellate jurisdiction in the case.

The primary legal issue was the extent to which knowledge on the part of the licensee or manager is necessary to establish a breach of the liquor licence condition. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the condition required actual knowledge of the immodest performance, or whether constructive knowledge was sufficient. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law to interpret the term "permit" in the context of the liquor licence condition. The Magistrate had not made any findings regarding constructive knowledge in the original proceedings, which led to the appeal.

In examining the legislative intent behind the liquor licence condition, the court concluded that the term "permit" required more than mere constructive knowledge; it necessitated actual knowledge on the part of the licensee or manager. The court emphasised that the statutory purpose was to prevent the promotion of activities that were inconsistent with the public interest, and thus a higher standard of knowledge was required. The absence of any finding by the Magistrate on the issue of constructive knowledge meant that the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions for a re-trial to address this issue.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. Remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for re-trial

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.