Liquor Administration Board v Williams & Ors [2001] NSWCA 143

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Liquor Administration Board v Williams & Ors [2001] NSWCA 143 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40054/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 May 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 May 2001

PARTIES : Liquor Administration Board v Andrew Denzil Williams; Licensing Court of New South Wales; Peter Scanlon; Hurstville City Council JUDGMENT OF : Giles JA at 1; Ipp AJA at 5; Rolfe AJA at 6

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT ED 2951/00 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Windeyer J JUDICIAL OFFICER :

Appellant - J. Basten QC / T. M. Lynch COUNSEL : Respondent (1) - M.L.D. Einfeld QC / F.P. Donohoe Respondent (4) - P. Riggs (Solicitor) Appellant - I.V. Knight, State Crown Solicitor SOLICITORS : Respondent (1) - Verekers Respondent (4) - Deacons CATCHWORDS : Statutory construction - meaning of 'authority' for the purposes of s161A(4) of the Liquor Act - meaning of 'final determination' in that section LEGISLATION CITED : Liquor Act 1982 Crown Proceedings Act 1988 DECISION : Appeal allowed; Amended Summons dismissed; see paragraph 39

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40054/01 ED 2951/00

GILES JA IPP AJA ROLFE AJA

Friday, 18 May 2001

LIQUOR ADMINISTRATION BOARD v WILLIAMS & ORS JUDGMENT 1 GILES JA: I have had the benefit of reading the reasons of Rolfe AJA in draft. 2 Drawing upon those reasons -

(a) neither s 182C of the Liquor Act 1982 ("the Act") nor condition 31 in the conditional licence granted on 20 March 2000 authorised the keeping, use or operation of poker machines in the first respondent's tavern; they imposed limits on the number of poker machines, and authority had to be obtained elsewhere;