Stird Potential Limited v Roycroft

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-1875

[2019] NZHC 509

BETWEEN
STIRD POTENTIAL LIMITED

Appellant

AND

RICHELLE ANGELINE ROYCROFT

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

T Greenwood for Appellant A R Govind for Respondent

Judgment:

21 March 2018

JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 March 2019 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Greenwood Law, Waiheke Island
Auckland Council – Legal Services

STIRD POTENTIAL LIMITED v ROYCROFT [2019] NZHC 509 [21 March 2018]

[1] Stird Potential Ltd (SPL) appealed a decision of the of the Alcohol Regulatory and Licencing Authority (the Authority) to suspend SPL’s off-licence from 24 September 2018 to 3 October 2018.1 In my decision, I dismissed the appeal and upheld the Authority’s suspension order. However, that order cannot be applied as the date has been superseded.

[2] In response to this issue, I understand the parties have agreed to the following order:

(a)Off-licence number 007/0FF/9002/2018 issued to Stird Potential Limited, is suspended for a period of 10 days from 7:00am on Thursday 2 May 2019 until 7:00am on Sunday 12 May 2019.

[3]I make the order accordingly.

1 Stird Potential Ltd v Roycroft [2019] NZHC 429.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Stird Potential Limited sought to challenge a decision made by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority to suspend their off-licence. The matter was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The decision was delivered on 21 March 2019 by Whata J. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the suspension order made by the Authority was justified and should be upheld. The court also had to consider the procedural fairness of the Authority's decision-making process.

The court examined the reasons provided by the Authority for the suspension and the evidence presented. Whata J determined that the Authority's decision was justified and that there was no procedural unfairness. The court found that the Authority had followed the correct process and had sufficient evidence to support the suspension. The appeal was dismissed, and the suspension order was upheld. However, due to the passage of time since the original suspension period, the court agreed to a rescheduled suspension period to allow the Authority's decision to be enforced.

The final orders of the court included the suspension of Stird Potential Limited's off-licence for a period of 10 days from 7:00am on Thursday 2 May 2019 until 7:00am on Sunday 12 May 2019. The court's decision was based on the reasoning that the Authority's decision was justified and that there was no procedural unfairness. The rescheduled suspension period allowed the Authority's decision to be enforced, while also taking into account the passage of time since the original suspension period.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	T Greenwood for Appellant A R Govind for Respondent
Judgment:	21 March 2018