Mullen v Hood

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute originated from an order made by the Licensing Court for the removal of a publican's licence, which was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Quarter Sessions. Objectors to the removal sought writs of prohibition and certiorari to quash these orders.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the orders for the removal of the licence were made without jurisdiction. Specifically, the objectors argued that the licence itself was a nullity because the licensed premises had been demolished, meaning there was no existing subject matter for the licence to attach to or be removed from. Furthermore, they contended that the Court of Quarter Sessions acted without jurisdiction by attaching a condition to its confirmation of the removal order, namely an undertaking from the licensee regarding the future conduct of the premises.

The High Court held that the determination of the Court of Quarter Sessions to confirm the removal order was not vitiated by the exaction of the undertaking. The Court reasoned that while a new licence could not be granted without an existing or prospective building, the Liquor Act 1912-1929 (N.S.W.) permitted the Licensing Court a discretion to renew a licence even if the buildings had been demolished. The existence of a building was not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the renewal or removal of a licence, but rather a matter for the Licensing Court to consider in the exercise of its discretion. The Court found that the licence, though attached to demolished premises, continued to exist as intangible property, and its renewal and subsequent removal were within the Licensing Court's powers.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The orders of the Licensing Court and the Court of Quarter Sessions granting the conditional removal of the licence were upheld.