OF AUSTRALIA. 321 (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ApreLiast ; THE LICENSING COURT OF VICTORIA \ AND ANOTHER... _ J Resroxpents. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA. | Livensing—Renewal of Ticenco—Reduetion of number of licences—Licenee declared H., ©. oF A. fo czase—Compensation not determined until after local option vole taken— 1921, Resolution that number of licences continue carried—Jurisdiction of Licensing = —~ Gourt—Licensing Act 1915 (Vict) (No, 2683), sece. 295, 296, 298, 299% Metnounse, Licensing Act 1916 (Viet. (No. 2855), secs. 46, 51.* May 18, 23. Pursuant to sec. 51 of the Licensing Act 1916 (Vict. the Licensing Court Knox 03, had determined to reduce the number of licences in a particular Licensing and Rich. District, and ia carrying out that determination had, before the dey appointed for the taking of the first local option vote mentioned in that section, declared Sec. 205 of the Licensing Act 1915 by seo. 45 of the Licensing Act 1916) (Viet) provides that a local option vote provides that When the Court deter- full be taken in every Licensing Dis- mines that any Hence shall cease such 'tit onthe day fixed forthe poll each licence shall at the expiration of the feneral eleotion for the Legislative period for which it was granted or Asembly: and, as amended by see. 51 Renewed cease and become absolutely Motte Licensing Act 1916 (Viet), that void and shall not be renewed." "Seo. thefirst local option vote should be 51 (2) of the Licensing et 1016 pro: fakenat thesecond generalclectionafter vides that "Until the day appointed Ist Jannazy 1017." Sec. 296 provides for the taking of the fit local option that 'the following resolutions. shall vote... the Licensing Court for fe submitted to the vote of the any Licensing District may determine lon iecution A thatthe that reduction be made in the number umber of licences existing in the of victuallers' licences for that Distric fletoral district continue; resolution as if resolution B. «. had boon B, thatthe number of licences existing carried in that District and may deter. Jn the electoral district be reduced; mine the amount of 'compensation and resolution C; that no licences be payable; and for the purposes of this anted in the electoral district. Sec. Subsection the provisions ofthe Licen; 208 provides that "if resolution Ais sng Act with such modifications and sared the number of Licences of the substitutions as are necessary sball be Teapective descriptions shall not exceed read and. construed and given effect he number at the time of the taking accordingly." sf the vote"" Sec. 200 (3) (substituted : Vou. xxix, a : HIGH COURT 'that the licence of a certain hotel should cease to be in force at the of the period for which it was then renewed. At the taking of the fg option vote in the District the resolution that the numberof lee thal continue was carried. After the taking of that vote the amount of compe, tion payable in respect of the licence of the hotel in question was ee by the Licensing Court. 'Hala, that the Licensing Court had no power to grant a renewal te licence for a period subsequent to that for which it was then renewed, Decision of the Supreme Court of Vietoria (Mann J.): Rv. Licensing Outs Bz parte Edgar, (1921) VLR, 89; $3 A.LT., 15, affirmed, Appear from the Supreme Court of Victoria, Olive Kathleen Edgar was at all material times the licensee ofthe Caledonian Hotel in South Melbourne, in the Emerald Hill Licensing District. 'The Licensing Court, having under the power conferred by see. 51 (2) of the Licensing Act 1916 (Vict.) determined to reduce the number of licences in that District, on 16th August 1920 declared that the licence of the Caledonian Hotel should cease to be in force at the expiration of the period for which it was renewed, names, on 3ist December 1920, Pursuant to secs. 281 and 302 of the Licensing Act 1915, on 18th August 1920 the Licensing Court notified the owner of the Hotel and Mrs. Edgar of a sitting of that Court 'commencing on 6th October to fix the maximum amount of com pensation and to determine the amount payable. Mrs Edgar claimed compensation for the loss of the licence and lease, and was heard on 6th October 1920; and the owner claimed compensation, and was heard on 8th October 1920, On 26th October 1920 the Licensing Court announced its determination of the amount of compensation payable. On 21st October 1920 the first local option vote was taken in the Emerald Hill Licensing District. 'The result of the vote was that the resolution that the number of licences the District should continue was carried. On 22nd November 1920 Mrs. Edgar made application to the Licensing Court for a certificate authorizing the renewal of her licence. 'The Court held that in vier" of their determination of 16th August 1920 the Court had no jr diction to entertain the application, which they struck out Ms Edgar then applied to the Licensing Court to state a case forthe opinion of the Supreme Court, but the application was OF AUSTRALIA. 323 Mrs Edgar thereupon applied to the Supreme Court for an order H.C. or A. 'nisi calling upon the Licensing Court to show cause why a writ of #2! 'mandamus should not issue directing the Licensing Court to hear Enean and determine the application for renewal, or, alternatively, Why toe na an order should not be made directing that Court to state a case, _,COvEE A copy of the order nisi was directed to be served on the Licensing» — Inspector for the District as well as on the Licensing Court, The onder nisi came on for heating before Mann J., who discharged it, - holding that, by reason of the declaration of the Licensing Court of 16th August 1920 that the licence should cease to exist on lst December 1920, the licence was not susceptible of renewal; that that determination was not avoided by reason of the amount of compensation not haying been determined before the taking of the poll ; and that the effect of the carrying of the resolution that the number of licences in the District should continue was not that the licence of Mrs, Edgar continued to be an existing licence, but 'was that the number of licences in the District should not exceed the number in existence at the time the local option poll was taken: R. v. Licensing Court ; Ex parte Edgar (1). From that decision Mrs. Edgar now appealed to the High Court. Owen Dizon (with him Hennessy), for the appellant. Notwith- standing the declaration that the appellant's licence was to cease to be in force, she was entitled to a renewal. 'The process of depriving licensed premises of a licence is not completed until the amount of 'compensation is determined, and under sec. 51 (2) of the Licensing Act 1916 the assessment of the amount of compensation as well as the determination to deprive the premises of a licence must be made before the local option vote is taken, The right to compensation is 'an essential condition to the deprivation of a licence, and the inten- tion of the Legislature as expressed in sec. 51 (2) is that the whole matter of the deprivation must be completed before the local option Vote is taken. [Counsel also referred to the Licensing Act 1915, 'sees, 295 (4), 299 (1), 296, 298, 299 ; Licensing Act 1916, sec. 46.) Lewers, for the respondent the Licensing Court. The taking of the local option vote did not affect this particular licence, and did () (092) VLR, 89; 43 ALT, 15, 32 HIGH COURT H.C.oF A. not prevent the previous declaration that the licence should g 1921. to exist from taking effect (White v. Licensing Court (I); He Eocan Brookes (2)). There is nothing in the Acts which requires Trenance Sation to be assessed at any particular time, and it may be ase Gover" after the taking of the local option vote. In see. 51 (2) of te =" Licensing Act 1916 the words "until the day appointed for th taking of the first local option vote" do not govern the subsequea words "may determine the amount of compensation," and, if they did, there is power under sec. 302 of the Licensing Act 915 and sec, 15 of the Licensing Act 1916 to assess the compensatig afterwards. Ham, for the respondent the Licensing Inspector. powers and rights given by other parts of the Acts, and, unless is a deprivation completed by assessment of compensation at th time the local option vote is taken, the licence remains in force the licensee is entitled to a renewal. mays, Kwox C.J. In this ease the Cour is of opinion that the clusion arrived at by Mann J. is correct'; and we agree with reasons given by him for arriving at that conclusion, 'The app is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant, Brayshay d Luke Murphy. Solicitor for the respondents, E. J. D. Guinness, Crown Solicit for Victoria. B. = (1) (1919) AC, 927; 260.LR, 257. (2) 13. CLR, 219, at p 22h