Licensing Court (SA) v White

The Licensing Court of South Australia appealed to the High Court against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute concerned the jurisdiction of the Licensing Court to entertain an objection to the renewal of a publican's licence on the ground that the premises were not required for the accommodation of the public, following the adoption of a "local option" resolution that the number of licences should not be increased or reduced. William Thomas White, the licensee, had argued that the adoption of this resolution divested the Licensing Court of its jurisdiction to refuse renewal on this ground.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the adoption of the second resolution under section 183 of the *Licensing Act 1908* (S.A.) – that the number of licences be not increased or reduced – limited the discretion of the Licensing Court, as established by section 59 of the same Act, to refuse the renewal of an existing licence on the ground that the premises were not required for the accommodation of the public.

The High Court, allowing the appeal, reasoned that the adoption of the second resolution under section 183 of the *Licensing Act 1908* (S.A.) primarily served to fix the maximum number of licences that could be granted in a district to the number existing at the time of the poll. Section 200 of the Act stipulated that no new licence could be granted thereafter, except in cases of removal, and that the number of licences should not be increased. However, the Court held that this did not extinguish the broader discretion granted to the Licensing Bench (and subsequently the Licensing Court) by section 59 to hear and determine applications for renewal and all objections on their merits, including the ground that the premises were not required for public accommodation. The Court found that the effect of the resolution was to limit the *granting* of new licences, not to remove the power to refuse *renewals* of existing licences based on the merits of objections.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the rule nisi for prohibition, and ordered that the rule nisi be discharged with costs, with the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.