New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Licence renewal

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2023

AASHI VENTURES LTD v POLICE [2023] NZHC 3457

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3457
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to persuade the Court that justice in the round required a stay: the appellant was not fully forthcoming about its financial position, the appeal lacked sufficient strength on the critical issue of licence renewal given concurrent specialist determinations and recent evidence of offending conduct, the appellant had already benefited from a prior stay, and the public interest did not favour maintaining the licence pending appeal.
25 Sept 2020

E R BELLAS LTD v KARIKARI 2012 CHARITABLE TRUST INCORPORATION [2020] NZHC 2517

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2517
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal. Although the Authority partly mischaracterised the DLC's findings, it was entitled and obliged on rehearing to form its own view of the evidence; on its own evaluation the Authority was not satisfied renewal was consistent with the object of the Act and that the applicant lacked appropriate systems, staff and training, and those conclusions were open on the evidence and not plainly wrong, so the Authority's decision to allow the appeal and rescind the licence renewal stands.
31 Jul 2019

CAPITAL LIQUOR LIMITED v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1846

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1846
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Authority did not err in law in refusing to admit the updating evidence (it was not fresh, cogent or material to alter the Committee's finding), the Committee's assessment that the appellant was unsuitable to operate an off-licence in evening high-risk hours was reasonably open on the evidence (past CPO failures, incidents, locality risk), and the 6 pm trading-hours condition was a proportionate, non-capricious regulatory measure within the Act's legitimate powers; economic prejudice and comparison with other licensees were not required considerations…
18 May 2018

THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH (WELLINGTON REGION) v LION LIQUOR RETAIL LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1123

Citation

[2018] NZAR 882
Court

High Court

The Authority erred in law by requiring a high degree of direct causal proof and by treating renewals differently from initial applications; the correct approach is an evaluative risk-based assessment against the Act's object (s4) and renewal criteria (s131), permitting conditions where evidence reasonably implicates the premises in alcohol-related harm and minimisation is required; on the evidence the DLC's hours restriction was a lawful, principled response and the Authority's decision was set aside and the DLC decision restored.
30 Oct 2015

AUCKLAND MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH v BIRTHCARE AUCKLAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2689

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2689
Court

High Court

The Authority and High Court held that although alcohol consumption during pregnancy poses unequivocal harm, the MOH did not establish a sufficient causal nexus between the published risks and the actual manner in which Birthcare operated its on-licence (very limited sales, controlled environment, health warnings and no evidence of harmful patient consumption), so renewal was properly granted; MOH has no onus to prove causation but the Authority may lawfully give the MOH evidence limited weight in the evaluative exercise.
6 Nov 2012

TRIVENI PURI LIMITED v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HC WANG CIV 2012-483-157

Citation

openlaw-a79ff37c_c7d6_49c1_9b56_f192d2a94e8f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Authority erred in relying on M's evidence of the 22 July transaction because his prior recantation and lack of corroboration required a more demanding assessment of proof; only two sales to minors were satisfactorily proven, and cancellation of the off-licence and the manager's certificate was disproportionate. The Court set aside the Authority's decisions, substituted a 28 day suspension of the off-licence and a four month suspension of the manager's certificate, and ordered renewal of the off-licence subject to conditions to be determined.
22 Jul 2010

FIRST SOVEREIGN TRUST AND V SECRETARY FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2010-485-828

Citation

openlaw-fd6a671e_ba3f_41c9_ab3f_52e3f7ba16d6.pdf
Court

High Court

Where administrative/licensing proceedings are entirely co-extensive with criminal charges and would replicate the criminal inquiry, proceeding with the administrative appeal before the criminal verdict would be an abuse of process; accordingly the Commission must adjourn the Trust's appeal until the related criminal proceedings conclude when the replication and integrity risks outweigh departmental supervisory interests (trial imminent here).
8 Oct 2009

BREWER V MARLBOROUGH AIRPORT LIMITED HC BLE CIV-2009-406-190

Citation

openlaw-01000669_c872_4879_8883_fe6dfe253da0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion under s 264 of the Property Law Act 2007 to decline relief because the licensee had demonstrated repeated and material breaches (unauthorised use of secure airside parking and failure to observe contractual opening hours), and given the unusual interdependence between licensor and licensee a breakdown of trust and a real risk of recurrence meant it was not appropriate to force renewal; however the licensor must honour its compensation offer and allow 28 days before demanding vacant possession.
2 Sept 2009

JANICE ELSIE BREWER V MARLBOROUGH AIRPORT LIMITED HC BLE CIV 2009-406-190

Citation

openlaw-5525bc8e_b4d1_4e6c_9677_63c6a8622899.pdf
Court

High Court

Arbitration clause 5.08 did not apply because there was no dispute between the parties about their contractual rights and obligations; the applicant established an arguable case and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the Court's ability to exercise statutory discretion under the Property Law Act 2007 because eviction and redevelopment would render relief ineffective and damages were inadequate; accordingly an interim injunction staying the Notices was granted until the substantive hearing on 5 October 2009.
7 May 2008

THE SECRETARY FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS V KILBIRNIE TAVERN LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-485-1988

Citation

openlaw-3969e1da_4b51_4b1c_b233_c1953bfde10b.pdf
Court

High Court

Associate Judge has jurisdiction to decide the strike-out application because s26J(4) was intended to exclude judicial review jurisdiction from Associate Judges but not declaratory proceedings generally; the Secretary's declaratory claim raises legitimate and substantial statutory interpretation issues tied to a concrete licence renewal and is not so untenable or abusive as to be struck out at the preliminary stage, so the strike-out application is dismissed and the declaratory proceeding may proceed.