Penna v The Liquor Administration Board & Anor [2001] NSWSC 681

Penna v The Liquor Administration Board & Anor [2001] NSWSC 681

The Council's 21 May 2001 response was an important document, was before the Board, and was taken into account by the Board in refusing the plaintiff's application. Because it was not served on the plaintiff and he was not given an opportunity to respond to it, the Board denied procedural fairness. The determination was therefore quashed and the matter was to be heard and determined when the law allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Decision of Liquor Administration Board / Ex Parte Hearing of Summons Seeking Declarations and Quashing Order
Outcome
Application granted on procedural fairness ground; Board determination quashed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'liquor Administration Board Determination' 'approved Gaming Devices' 'social Impact Assessment']
['administrative Law' 'liquor Licensing' 'gaming Regulation'] ['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'liquor Administration Board Determination' 'approved Gaming Devices' 'social Impact Assessment']

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 Against Decision of Liquor Administration Board / Ex Parte Hearing of Summons Seeking Declarations and Quashing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Liquor Administration Board denied procedural fairness by considering the second respondent's further submissions dated 21 May 2001 without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to respond." "Whether the Board's determination of 22 June 2001 should be quashed." 'Whether regulation 46AA(3) of the Liquor Amendment (Approved Gaming Devices) Regulations 2001 prevented the Board from determining the application.' 'Whether the Board erred in its approach to assessing detrimental impact on the local community.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's 21 May 2001 response was an important document, was before the Board, and was taken into account by the Board in refusing the plaintiff's application. Because it was not served on the plaintiff and he was not given an opportunity to respond to it, the Board denied procedural fairness. The determination was therefore quashed and the matter was to be heard and determined when the law allowed.

Court Disposition

Application granted on procedural fairness ground; Board determination quashed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness by failure to respond to a written submission made by the plaintiff as contained in a letter dated 2 May 2001 from Slater & Elias, solicitors for the plaintiff.' 'Declaration that the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness by failure by the first...