NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Allam v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2020] NSWCATAD 325 Hearing dates: 2, 24 September 2020 Date of orders: 23 December 2020 Decision date: 23 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Britton, Principal Member Decision: (1) The decision made by the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority on 7 January 2020, in relation to Mr Allam is set aside. In substitution for decision the Tribunal makes the following decision: (a) Mr Allam's gaming machine technician's licence is suspended for a period of six months from the date of these orders. (b) Mr Allam is also disqualified from applying for or holding any other form of gaming-related licence under the Gaming Machines Act 2001 (NSW) for a period of six months from the date of this decision. (c) Mr Allam is ordered to pay a monetary penalty of $4,500 to the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Customer Service within 30 days of the date of this decision. (d) Mr Allam is ordered to pay to the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Customer Service, the sum of $20,000 within 30 days of the date of this decision being the costs of the investigation giving rise to the complaint. (2) Pursuant to s 66 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), these orders will come into effect in 35 days from the date of this decision. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — whether gaming machine technician contravened Gaming Machines Act 2001 (NSW) — whether gaming machine technician is a fit and proper person to hold a gaming machine technician — disciplinary action STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — whether subject gaming machines were "approved gaming machines" for the purpose of Gaming Machines Act 2001 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Gaming Machines Act 2001 (NSW) Gaming Machines Regulation 2010 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Proudman v Dayman [1941] HCA 28; (1941) 67 CLR 536 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Riad Allam (Applicant) Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (First Respondent) Secretary, Department of Customer Service (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Oakes (Applicant) J Davidson (Second Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate