Visalli & Anor v Commissioner of Police & Anor [2001] NSWSC 360

Visalli & Anor v Commissioner of Police & Anor [2001] NSWSC 360

The plaintiff did not establish that the magistrate could not have been satisfied of the statutory necessity for closure. The interval between making the order and its commencement was reasonably explicable as allowing time for service, and the information sheet described a course of conduct from which the magistrate could reasonably conclude that the situation was likely to persist or recur in the immediate future if the premises were not closed. The notice of motion was therefore dismissed as to paragraph 3, with costs to the first defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking Declarations and Orders Quashing a Closure Order Under the Liquor Act 1982, With Notice of Motion for Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Notice of Motion
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed as to paragraph 3; plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['closure Order for Licensed Premises' 'jurisdiction of Magistrate' 'interlocutory Injunctive Relief' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'liquor Licensing' 'injunctions'] ['closure Order for Licensed Premises' 'jurisdiction of Magistrate' 'interlocutory Injunctive Relief' 'costs']

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

Summons Seeking Declarations and Orders Quashing a Closure Order Under the Liquor Act 1982, With Notice of Motion for Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the magistrate could have been satisfied under s 104A of the Liquor Act 1982 that closure of the Stardust Hotel was necessary to prevent or reduce a significant threat or risk to the public interest.' 'Whether the delay between making the order at 10.50am and requiring closure from 3pm showed that closure was not necessary.' 'Whether the age of the events in the information sheet meant the magistrate could not be satisfied of the necessity for closure.' 'Whether costs should follow the event on dismissal of the notice of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish that the magistrate could not have been satisfied of the statutory necessity for closure. The interval between making the order and its commencement was reasonably explicable as allowing time for service, and the information sheet described a course of conduct from which the magistrate could reasonably conclude that the situation was likely to persist or recur in the immediate future if the premises were not closed. The notice of motion was therefore dismissed as to paragraph 3, with costs to the first defendant.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed as to paragraph 3; plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed in court today is dismissed as to paragraph 3.' "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs of the notice of motion."]