NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Rogers v The Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2019] NSWSC 548 Hearing dates: 21 September 2018 Date of orders: 21 September 2018 Decision date: 14 May 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: (1) Until further order, the decision of The Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority of 14 September 2018, varying the extended trading authorisation applicable to the Sydney Junction Hotel, Hamilton be stayed.
(2) The final proceedings in this matter be expedited.
(3) Costs be costs in the cause. Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW – stay of decision below – public interest – triable issue – serious prejudice – economic loss – vulnerability to criminal process in absence of stay – stay granted Legislation Cited: Liquor Act 2007 (NSW), Sch 4, ss 51(9)(b), 51(13) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 23, 69 Cases Cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596; [1990] HCA 57 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd (No 1) (1986) 160 CLR 220; [1986] HCA 13 Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (No 1) (1986) 161 CLR 681; [1986] HCA 84 Kioa v West; (1985) 159 CLR 550; [1985] HCA 81 Manfal Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Trade Practices Commission (1990) 65 ALJR 256 R v Commonwealth Industrial Court Judges; Ex parte Cocks (1968) 121 CLR 313; [1968] HCA 86 Re Moore; Ex parte Pillar (1991) 65 ALJR 683 Rogers v The Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1177 Sullivan v The Secretary, Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323; [1978] FCA 48 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Campbell Myles Rogers (First Plaintiff) Ross Alexander Boland (Second Plaintiff) Sydney Junction Hotel Property Pty Limited (Third Plaintiff) Sydney Junction Hotel Operations Pty Limited (Fourth Plaintiff) The Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (First Defendant) Commissioner of New South Wales Police (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: W C Muddle SC (Plaintiffs) Submitting appearance (First Defendant) S Robertson (Second Defendant)
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