Dubbo RSL Memorial Club Limited & Anor v Steppat & Ors [2008] NSWSC 965

Dubbo RSL Memorial Club Limited & Anor v Steppat & Ors [2008] NSWSC 965

Each disputed area was comprised of two places: a roofed room providing gaming or TAB-related facilities and an external uncovered terrace. The uncovered areas were not to be included in the cl 6 calculation for the roofed areas. Because the total area of the ceiling and wall surfaces of each internal roofed area was agreed to be more than 75 per cent of its total notional ceiling and wall area, each internal roofed area was an "enclosed public place" and therefore a "smoke-free area" under s 6 of the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Seeking Declarations and Other Relief Relating to the Status of Areas of Licensed Club Premises Under the Smoke Free Environment Act 2000 / Principal Judgment on the Plaintiffs' Summons and the Defendants' Cross Summons
Outcome
The plaintiffs' summons was dismissed with costs, and the declarations sought in the defendants' cross summons were made.
Legal Topics
['smoke Free Areas' 'enclosed Public Place' 'licensed Club Premises' 'statutory Construction' 'declarations']
['public Health' 'administrative Law'] ['smoke Free Areas' 'enclosed Public Place' 'licensed Club Premises' 'statutory Construction' 'declarations']

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

Civil Proceedings Seeking Declarations and Other Relief Relating to the Status of Areas of Licensed Club Premises Under the Smoke Free Environment Act 2000 / Principal Judgment on the Plaintiffs' Summons and the Defendants' Cross Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the internal roofed area of the Outdoor Gaming Terrace of the first plaintiff\'s premises is an "enclosed public place" for the purpose of the definition of "smoke-free area" in s 6 of the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000.' 'Whether the roofed area of the TAB Outdoor Area of the first plaintiff\'s premises is an "enclosed public place" for the purpose of the definition of "smoke-free area" in s 6 of the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000.' 'Whether, for applying cl 6 of the Regulations, the covered and uncovered parts of each disputed area constituted a single public place or two places.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each disputed area was comprised of two places: a roofed room providing gaming or TAB-related facilities and an external uncovered terrace. The uncovered areas were not to be included in the cl 6 calculation for the roofed areas. Because the total area of the ceiling and wall surfaces of each internal roofed area was agreed to be more than 75 per cent of its total notional ceiling and wall area, each internal roofed area was an "enclosed public place" and therefore a "smoke-free area" under s 6 of the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs' summons was dismissed with costs, and the declarations sought in the defendants' cross summons were made.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs' summons dismissed with costs." 'A declaration that the internal roofed area of the Outdoor Gaming Terrace of the first plaintiff\'s premises is an "enclosed public place" for the purpose of the definition of "smoke-free area" in s 6 of the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000.' 'A declaration that the...