NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Auld v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2018] NSWCATAD 25 Hearing dates: 1 and 2 August 2017 Date of orders: 30 January 2018 Decision date: 30 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: K Ransome, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision under review is set aside.
(2) The decision is made that the application to remove the hotel licence from the Mill Tavern in Young to the ALDI Supermarket in Young is approved.
(3) The conditions attached to the removed licence will be those agreed between the parties which permit the licenced premises to operate as a packaged liquor outlet only. Catchwords: LIQUOR LICENCE – removal of licence to other premises – can hotel licence be used to sell packaged liquor only – requirement for development consent – conditions form part of licence – social impact test – matters to be considered when determining social impact
ROLE OF TRIBUNAL – powers on review – rehearing rather than new hearing – new evidence – correct or preferable decision
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – meaning of "the business or activity to which the proposed licence relates" – actual business or activity to be carried out
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – social impact test – matters to be considered – role of general academic research Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Gaming and Liquor Administration Act 2007 Liquor Act 2007 Liquor Regulation 2008 Cases Cited: Auld v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (No. 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 339 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 634 Nevistic v Minister for Immigration (1981) 34 ALR 639 Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] 258 CLR 173 Texts Cited: DC Pearce & RS Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 8th edition Category: Principal judgment Parties: Trent Auld (Applicant) Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Howard SC (Applicant) J Emmett (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