Sand Volley Australia Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing

Sand Volley Australia Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Liquor Licensing to refuse its application for a special facility licence. The application was to allow the sale of liquor at the Perth Rectangular Arena, which was identified as a sports arena in the application. The Court of Appeal considered whether the decision was made in accordance with the Liquor Control Act 1988 (WA) and Liquor Control Regulations 1989 (WA). The primary issue was whether the Liquor Commission, in making its decision, exercised its functions in accordance with the Act and whether its findings were legally unreasonable.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was flawed because it failed to consider certain mandatory objects of the Liquor Control Act in its assessment of the public interest. The Court found that the Commission's decision was legally unreasonable, amounting to a jurisdictional error, because it did not exercise its decision-making power within the bounds of legal reasonableness. The Court considered the nature of legal unreasonableness, which may be either outcome-focused or process-focused, and concluded that the Commission's failure to consider the relevant statutory objects amounted to such an error. The Court also noted that the Commission's decision was not manifestly unreasonable or irrational, but rather, it was a failure to properly exercise its statutory powers.

The Court determined that the appeal should be upheld and that the application should be remitted to the Liquor Commission for reconsideration. The Court emphasised that a reconsideration should involve an assessment of whether the premises are primarily used for playing and viewing sport and an assessment of the public interest. The Court noted that the Liquor Commission, as the specialist tribunal, is best placed to make these assessments. The Court will hear the parties regarding the precise form of orders to be made.

The Court's decision highlights the importance of statutory interpretation and the need for decision-makers to properly consider all relevant statutory objects in their decision-making process. The Court also emphasises the distinction between legal unreasonableness and manifest unreasonableness, noting that the former may be outcome-focused or process-focused. The decision provides guidance to decision-makers in the liquor licensing context and ensures that the Liquor Commission properly exercises its statutory powers in accordance with the Act and Regulations.