Marriott v Coleman [1963] HCA 46

Marriott v Coleman [1963] HCA 46

The Licensing Act 1958 s.246(1)(m) does not impose an absolute prohibition; proximity to a place of public worship is a discretionary ground for refusal, not an imperative bar. The Licensing Court must weigh this objection in light of all circumstances and is not legally bound to refuse registration solely on this ground.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court of Victoria by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['grounds of Objection to Club Registration' 'discretion Versus Absolute Bar Under Licensing Act' 'interpretation of Licensing Act 1958 S.246']
['licensing Law'] ['grounds of Objection to Club Registration' 'discretion Versus Absolute Bar Under Licensing Act' 'interpretation of Licensing Act 1958 S.246']

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 / Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court of Victoria by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proximity to a place of public worship is an absolute bar or discretionary ground to club registration under s.246(1)(m) Licensing Act 1958' 'Whether Licensing Court is bound to refuse registration if the premises are in the immediate vicinity of a place of public worship']

Ratio Decidendi

The Licensing Act 1958 s.246(1)(m) does not impose an absolute prohibition; proximity to a place of public worship is a discretionary ground for refusal, not an imperative bar. The Licensing Court must weigh this objection in light of all circumstances and is not legally bound to refuse registration solely on this ground.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court varied by answering No instead of Yes to each question in the Case Stated.' "Order for costs deleted and replaced with an order that respondent's costs in the Supreme Court be paid by appellants."]