Palace Gallery Pty Ltd v Liquor and Gambling Commissioner (No 2)

Palace Gallery Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner (the respondent) to refuse to grant a licence for a casino. The applicant also sought declarations that certain provisions of the *Casino Control Act 1992* (SA) were invalid. The matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the *Casino Control Act 1992* (SA) conferred on the respondent the power to refuse to grant a casino licence on grounds other than those expressly specified in the Act. A secondary issue concerned the applicant's claim that the Act was invalid on the ground that it purported to confer judicial power on a non-judicial body, contrary to Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

The Court held that the respondent's power to refuse a licence was limited to the grounds specified in the Act. The Court reasoned that the Act provided a comprehensive code for the granting of casino licences and that the respondent could not exercise a discretion to refuse a licence on grounds not contemplated by the legislation. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the Court found that the powers conferred by the Act on the respondent did not amount to the exercise of judicial power, and therefore did not contravene Chapter III of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the respondent had acted unlawfully in refusing the licence on grounds not permitted by the Act.

The Court made declarations that the respondent's decision to refuse the licence was invalid and that the respondent was not empowered to refuse the licence on the grounds relied upon. The Court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.