Taphouse Investments Pty Limited v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority

Taphouse Investments Pty Limited sought to appeal a decision by the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (the Authority) that dismissed an application to extend trading hours for a hotel that it owned. The Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority had previously refused to extend the hotel's trading hours, and Taphouse sought review of that decision by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The Tribunal upheld the Authority's decision, but Taphouse then sold the hotel to another party, which sought to appeal the Tribunal's decision. The Authority opposed the appeal on the basis that the new owner was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal and therefore had no standing to appeal. The Authority also argued that the appeal was now moot because the hotel had changed hands and the issues the appeal sought to address were no longer relevant. The new owner argued that the appeal was not moot and that it was entitled to appeal the decision because the issues raised by the appeal were of a broader public interest, and that it was proper for the new owner to join the appeal as it was in a position to suffer prejudice by the orders made by the Tribunal.

The court was required to determine whether the new owner was a proper party to the appeal, whether the appeal was moot, and whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to make orders in favour of the appellant on a further review of an application for extended trading refused by the Authority. The court was also required to determine the proper construction of section 49 of the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) and whether extended trading authorisation 'runs' with the premises upon transfer to a new licensee.

The court found that the new owner was a proper party to the appeal as it was in a position to suffer prejudice by the orders made by the Tribunal. The court also found that the appeal was not moot as the issues raised by the appeal were of a broader public interest. The court found that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make orders in favour of the appellant on a further review of an application for extended trading refused by the Authority, and that the proper construction of section 49 of the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) was that extended trading authorisation does 'run' with the premises upon transfer to a new licensee. The court held that the new owner was entitled to appeal the Tribunal's decision, and that the Tribunal could make orders in favour of the appellant on a further review of an application for extended trading refused by the Authority.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed, and that the matter be remitted to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales for further consideration in light of the court's findings.