Hurstville City Council v Williams - [2000] NSWSC 673

CITATION: Hurstville City Council v Williams & Anor [2000] NSWSC 673

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 10906/00

HEARING DATE(S): 23 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 13 July 2000

PARTIES :

Hurstville City Council
(Plaintiff)
v
Andrew Denzil Williams
(First Defendant)
Licensing Court of New South Wales
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Davies AJ

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Licensing Court of NSW

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 174948/00

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Chairman Licensing Court D B Armati Licensing Magistrate D A Collins Licensing Magistrate D A Kok

COUNSEL : P: Mr P Rigg (Solicitor)
1D: Mr S Austin QC, Mr A C Casselden
2D: Submitting Appearance

SOLICITORS: P: Deacons Graham & James
1D: Phillips Fox
2D: I V Knight

CATCHWORDS: Liquor Licensing - appeal from Licensing Court - whether error of law - whether inappropriate location for hotel - whether decision was one of which no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived.

LEGISLATION CITED: Liquor Act 1912, s 29
Liquor Act 1982, ss 104, 146

CASES CITED: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Maynard v Dabinett [1999] NSWCA 295
Donges v Ratcliffe (1975) 1 NSWLR 501

DECISION: Dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

DAVIES AJ
13 JULY 2000

10906/00 - HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL v Andrew Denzil WILLIAMS & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a decision of the Licensing Court of New South Wales given on 20 March 2000. Section 146 of the Liquor Act, 1982 limits the appeal to a question of law.
2 In its decision, the Licensing Court held that an application by the first defendant, Andrew Denzil Williams, for the conditional grant of an hotelier’s licence for premises at 227 Forest Road, Hurstville, be granted and that, upon the issue of the licence, certain conditions be imposed. Thirty-six conditions which I need not set out were specified. During the course of the hearing before the Licensing Court, objections by the State Rail Authority and by a number of private objectors were settled and withdrawn on the understanding that conditions would be imposed upon the licence if granted. Those conditions were included in the Licensing Court’s order. The remaining objector to the grant of an hotelier’s licence was Hurstville City Council ("the Council"). The Licensing Court noted the substance of the Council’s objection as follows:
· “That the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood will be disturbed;
· That the granting of the application will be contrary to the public interest because:

i) The amenity of the neighbourhood will be unduly affected and disturbed.”

3 The Council had submitted like objections when an application by Sandtara Pty Limited for planning approval in respect of the premises had come before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. On 9 December 1998, the Land and Environment Court, after 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hurstville City Council v Williams and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 673
Decision Date: 13 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Hurstville City Council against a decision of the Local Court to approve an application for a hotel licence in an area deemed unsuitable by the council. The dispute centred on the location of the proposed hotel and whether it complied with the Liquor Act 2007. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Local Court had made an error of law in approving the hotel licence and whether the location was inappropriate for a hotel. The court also needed to determine whether the Local Court's decision was one of which no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived. The central issue was whether the Local Court had correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria in making its decision.

The court found that the Local Court had not made an error of law and that the decision was not one of which no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived. The court held that the Local Court had correctly applied the statutory criteria in assessing the application and had considered all relevant factors. The court found that the location was not inherently unsuitable for a hotel and that the decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal. The hotel licence approved by the Local Court was upheld, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders