NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : King v Liquor Administration Board [2008] NSWSC 1217
HEARING DATE(S) : 13 October 1008
JUDGMENT DATE : 20 November 2008
JURISDICTION : Common Law Division
JUDGMENT OF : Harrison AsJ
(1) The decision of the Liquor Administration Board of New South Wales made on 5 March 2008 is set aside. DECISION : (2) This matter is remitted to the Liquor Administration Board to be determined according to law. (3) I make no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS : JUDICIAL REVIEW - Liquor Administration Board
Liquor Act 1982 LEGISLATION CITED : Liquor Act 2007 Liquor Regulation 1996 Supreme Court Act 1970
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
CASES CITED : Martin v Kelly [2008] NSWSC 577 Moorebank Sports Club Ltd v Liquor Administration Board [2008] NSWSC 864
Pauline King (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Liquor Administration Board of NSW (First Defendant) David Bruce Amarti (Second Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 30081/2008
COUNSEL : J B Costigan (Plaintiff) S Lloyd - Amicus Curiae (Defendants)
SOLICITORS : Blake Dawson (Plaintiff)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Liquor Administration Board of NSW
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION : 5 March 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
ASSOCIATE JUSITCE HARRISON
THURSDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2008
30081/2008 - PAULINE KING v LIQUOR ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF NSW
JUDGMENT (Judicial review – Liquor Administration Board) 1 HER HONOUR: This is a claim for prerogative relief arising from a decision not to approve a social impact assessment. By summons filed 25 June 2008, the plaintiff seeks firstly, a declaration that the first defendant's refusal of the Category B Social Impact Assessment given on or about 5 March 2008 was contrary to the Liquor Act 1982 and the Liquor Regulation 1996 and was in excess of the first defendant's power to refuse such an approval. 2 The plaintiff is Pauline King. The first defendant is Liquor Administration Board of NSW (the Board). The second defendant is David Bruce Amarti, Chairperson of the Liquor Administration Board of NSW. The Attorney General appeared as amicus curiae and furnished written submissions. The plaintiff essentially agreed with the submissions made by the Attorney General.
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