S & J White Pty Ltd v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd

S & J White Pty Ltd appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of a Judge of the Licensing Court. The Licensing Court Judge had granted an application by Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd to remove a retail liquor merchant's licence from premises in Gouger Street, Adelaide, to premises in Hutt Street, Adelaide. The appeal concerned whether the Licensing Court Judge had erred in his findings and exercise of discretion.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Licensing Court Judge had erred in finding that the Hutt Street premises and the Gouger Street premises were in the same locality, whether the applicant was required to establish a need for the licence at the Hutt Street premises under section 61(2) of the *Liquor Licensing Act 1997* (SA), and whether the Judge had erred in exercising his discretion under section 53 of the Act to grant the removal application.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Licensing Court Judge had not erred. The Court found that the two premises were indeed in the same locality. Crucially, the Court determined that section 61(2) of the Act, which requires an applicant to establish need, does not apply to the removal of a licence between premises located within the same locality. Consequently, the applicant was not obliged to demonstrate a need for the licence at the Hutt Street premises. The Court concluded that the Licensing Court Judge's decision to grant the application was a proper exercise of his discretion.