THE RETURNED & SERVICES LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA (VICTORIA BRANCH) INC (PASCOE VALE SUB BRANCH)
Appellants
v
LIQUOR LICENSING COMMISSION
Firstnamed Respondents
and
THE CARLTON CRICKET & FOOTBALL SOCIAL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 004 658 039)
Secondnamed Respondents
No. 6613 of 1998
THE RETURNED & SERVICES LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA (VICTORIA BRANCH) INC (GLENROY SUB BRANCH)
Appellants
v
LIQUOR LICENSING COMMISSION
Firstnamed Respondents
and
THE CARLTON CRICKET & FOOTBALL SOCIAL CLUB LIMITED (ACN 004 658 039)
Secondnamed Respondents
---
JUDGES:
PHILLIPS, CHARLES and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:
MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:
23 and 24 February, 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
15 April, 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:
[1999] VSCA 37
---
Administrative law - Judicial Review - Certiorari - Liquor Licensing Commission -Application for permit - Representation allowed to "sub-branch" of incorporated opponent - Defects in notice of application excused - "Primary purpose" of applicant's business and "community interest" considered - Conditional licence granted by Commissioner - Confirmed on review by Full Commission - Whether attended by error of law on face of record or jurisdictional error - When error "jurisdictional" - Content of "record" - Certiorari refused - Appeal dismissed - Liquor Control Act 1987 ss.28(1)(e), 48(2)(a), (4), 72, 74, 105. Administrative Law Act 1978, s.10.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellants
Mr. G.H. Garde Q.C. with Mr. M.J. Corrigan
De Marchi & Associates
For the First Respondent
No appearance.
For the Second Respondent
Mr. W.T. Houghton Q.C. with Mr. J.F. Larkins
Baker & McKenzie
PHILLIPS, J.A.:
These proceedings arise under the Liquor Control Act 1987. That Act was very recently repealed when the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 came into force. Counsel assured us that nothing in the new Act impinged upon a determination of these proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the 1987 Act. Accordingly, in what follows, it is the Liquor Control Act 1987 to which I refer as "the Act".
On 8 September 1995, The Carlton Cricket & Football Social Club Limited ("Carlton") lodged an application with the Liquor Licensing Commission under the Act for a full club licence and associated permits and authorities in respect of premises consisting of a vacant office block at 177 Glenroy Road Glenroy. I shall refer to these as "the subject premises". Notice of the application was given in a newspaper circulating in the area, as required by s.72(1) of the Act and, for the sake of compliance with s.72(2), notice was posted on or near the front doors of the subject premises. The subject premises are diagonally opposite premises occupied by the Glenroy sub-branch of The Returned and Services League of Australia (Victoria sub-branch) Inc. ("the R.S.L."), though no notice of objection was lodged on behalf of the Glenroy sub-branch for some 12 months.
On 21 November 1995, the Pascoe Vale sub-branch of the R.S.L. gave notice under s.74(1)(a) of the Act that it considered that the granting of Carlton's application would not be in the interests of…
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.
Continue reading RSL v Liquor Licensing Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
RSL v Liquor Licensing Commission [1999] VSCA 37
Case
[1999] VSCA 37
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of RSL v Liquor Licensing Commission, the dispute arose when the applicant, RSL, sought a review of the decisions made by the Liquor Licensing Commission in relation to the granting of a liquor licence. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The RSL sought a judicial review of the decisions made by the Commission, arguing that there were errors of law that warranted the grant of certiorari.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Commission's decision-making process was attended by an error of law on the face of the record or a jurisdictional error, and if so, what constituted a "jurisdictional" error. Additionally, the court had to consider the content of the "record" and the extent to which defects in the notice of application could be excused. The court also had to evaluate the primary purpose of the applicant's business and the community interest in the granting of a liquor licence.
The court found that the Commission's decision-making process did not contain any jurisdictional errors or errors of law on the face of the record. The court held that the Commission had properly considered the primary purpose of the applicant's business and the community interest. The court also held that defects in the notice of application could be excused under the circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the Commission had exercised its discretion lawfully and that the grant of the liquor licence was not attended by any jurisdictional error. The application for certiorari was, therefore, refused, and the appeal was dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that the application for a writ of certiorari be dismissed and that the appeal be dismissed with costs.