Richardson & Anor v Smith & Anor [2002] NSWSC 720

Richardson & Anor v Smith & Anor [2002] NSWSC 720

The Licensing Court majority was correct because s 36(6) has a clear grammatical meaning: it prohibits a further application only for the premises, or any part of the premises, in relation to which the earlier grant or removal was refused. The earlier refusal concerned shop 9, corner of Banyette and Bong Bong Streets, Bowral, while the current application concerned premises in the Woolworths supermarket which, although very close and separated only by an adjoining wall, were in a different location. The current application was therefore not barred by s 36(6), and no error of law was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal on a Question of Law Pursuant to S 146 of the Liquor Act 1982 (as Amended) / Supreme Court Determination of the Plaintiffs' Summons Challenging the Licensing Court Determination and Adjudication
Outcome
Plaintiffs' summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['liquor Act 1982, S 36(6)' 'off Licence Retail Removal' 'two Year Moratorium' 'needs Objection Under S 45(2)' 'appeal on Question of Law']
['liquor Licensing' 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['liquor Act 1982, S 36(6)' 'off Licence Retail Removal' 'two Year Moratorium' 'needs Objection Under S 45(2)' 'appeal on Question of Law']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal on a Question of Law Pursuant to S 146 of the Liquor Act 1982 (as Amended) / Supreme Court Determination of the Plaintiffs' Summons Challenging the Licensing Court Determination and Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s 36(6) of the Liquor Act 1982 prohibited Mr Smith's application to remove an off-licence retail to the Woolworths supermarket at Bowral after an earlier refusal concerning shop 9, corner of Banyette and Bong Bong Streets, Bowral." 'Whether the Licensing Court majority erred in law by construing the word "premises" in s 36(6) as confined to the premises previously proposed to be licensed rather than the broader building or shopping complex.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Licensing Court majority was correct because s 36(6) has a clear grammatical meaning: it prohibits a further application only for the premises, or any part of the premises, in relation to which the earlier grant or removal was refused. The earlier refusal concerned shop 9, corner of Banyette and Bong Bong Streets, Bowral, while the current application concerned premises in the Woolworths supermarket which, although very close and separated only by an adjoining wall, were in a different location. The current application was therefore not barred by s 36(6), and no error of law was shown.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ["Order the plaintiffs' summons be dismissed." "Order the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs."]