Licensing Court for the District of Northam v Worner

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning the jurisdiction of the Licensing Court for the District of Northam. The dispute arose when George Gordon Worner, the holder of a wayside house licence, applied to remove his licence to new premises in Merredin. The Licensing Court refused the application, citing a provision in the *Licensing Act 1911* (W.A.) that prohibited the granting or renewal of wayside house licences for premises situated within ten miles of a municipal district or townsite with a population exceeding one hundred persons. Worner then obtained an order nisi for mandamus from the Supreme Court, which was made absolute, directing the Licensing Court to hear and determine the application.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Licensing Court had the jurisdiction to order the removal of a wayside house licence to premises located within the prohibited distance from a populated area. Specifically, the Court had to determine the nature of a licence "removal" under the Act and whether it constituted a new grant of a licence, thereby attracting the restrictions imposed by section 30 of the *Licensing Act 1911*.

The High Court, by majority, held that the removal of a licence under section 57 of the *Licensing Act 1911* operated as a grant of a licence in respect of the new premises. Griffith C.J. reasoned that a licence has a dual operation, applying to both an individual and specific premises, and that the term "licensed premises" implies that a licence has been granted and is in force for those premises. Consequently, if a licence is removed to new premises, those new premises become "licensed premises." This effectively means that a removal is akin to a new grant, and therefore, the restrictions on granting a wayside house licence within ten miles of a populated area applied to such removals. The Court concluded that the Licensing Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to make the order for removal.

The High Court accordingly discharged the order of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and ordered that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.