Otzen v Beabout [1947] HCA 49

Otzen v Beabout [1947] HCA 49

Although both the barmaid and the licensee were employees of the company, by presumption under s. 43 of the Liquor Act, the barmaid was acting as the agent of the licensee, and the sale of liquor by her at above the maximum price was, in law, a sale by or on behalf of the licensee. Thus, the licensee is vicariously responsible and deemed to have contravened reg. 29(3), unless he demonstrated lack of knowledge and due diligence, which the magistrate found he had not.

Parties
Informant: Ernest Otzen; Defendant: William Keith Beabout; Company (owner): Hydro (Medlow Bath) Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Court of Petty Sessions Decision (case Stated to High Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Prices Regulation, Vicarious Liability, Licensing, Agency, Sale of Liquor
National Security Liquor Licensing Criminal Law Prices Regulation Vicarious Liability Licensing Agency Sale of Liquor

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Otzen

Informant

William Keith Beabout

Defendant

Hydro (Medlow Bath) Ltd.

Company (owner)

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal From Court of Petty Sessions Decision (case Stated to High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the licensee is vicariously liable under the National Security (Prices) Regulations for a sale above the maximum price conducted by a barmaid employed by the company
  2. 2 Whether the sale by the barmaid was on behalf of the licensee or the company under the relevant statutes

Ratio Decidendi

Although both the barmaid and the licensee were employees of the company, by presumption under s. 43 of the Liquor Act, the barmaid was acting as the agent of the licensee, and the sale of liquor by her at above the maximum price was, in law, a sale by or on behalf of the licensee. Thus, the licensee is vicariously responsible and deemed to have contravened reg. 29(3), unless he demonstrated lack of knowledge and due diligence, which the magistrate found he had not.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the magistrate set aside
  • Matter remitted to the stipendiary magistrate to be dealt with according to law