Hoffman & Anor v State of Qld

In Hoffman & Anor v. State of Queensland, the plaintiffs, Graeme Leslie Hoffman and Bernadette Maree McCormack, sought to have two notices issued by the State of Queensland under Section 187 of the Liquor Act 1992 - 1994 declared invalid. The notices were issued in response to complaints about noise levels emanating from the plaintiffs' licensed premises, Boulevard Tropical Gardens Restaurant, during late hours. The plaintiffs argued that the notices were improperly drafted and exceeded the powers granted by the Liquor Act. The central legal issues before the court were whether the notices were valid under the Act and if the power of the Liquor Licensing Division to issue such notices extended to preventing future noise nuisances, even when no current nuisance existed.

The court considered the language of Section 187, which allows an investigator to issue a notice if they believe on reasonable grounds that noise from licensed premises is a nuisance to nearby residents. The court reasoned that for a notice to be valid, the investigator must genuinely believe that the noise constitutes a nuisance and that belief must be reasonable. The court found that the notices in question were based on such beliefs and were therefore potentially valid. However, the court also noted that for a notice to have legal effect, the noise in question must actually constitute a nuisance at common law. The court declined to make a definitive ruling on whether the noise levels measured did indeed constitute a nuisance but suggested that such a determination would need to be made in a separate proceeding.

Regarding the scope of the Liquor Licensing Division's power, the court held that Section 187 empowers investigators to issue notices to stop or reduce noise that constitutes a nuisance, but it does not grant a general power to prevent future potential nuisances. The court concluded that the second notice, which required cessation of amplification of music and voice until further advised, went beyond the powers granted by the Act. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had not established that the notices were invalid, and thus declined to make the declarations sought by the plaintiffs. The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs.