Mojo Limited, re [2002] NZLLA 215 (6 May 2002)

Last Updated: 1 March 2010

Decision No. PH 215/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by MOJO LIMITED for an on-licence pursuant to s.7 of the Act in respect of premises situated at 48 Market Place, Auckland, known as ”Mojo”

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Mr J C Crookston

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 29 April 2002

APPEARANCES

Mr J H Wiles for applicant
Mr G S Whittle – Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist
Ms S J Simons for objectors

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Mojo Limited for an on-licence in respect of premises situated at 48 Market Place, Auckland, known as “Mojo”.
[2] The premises the subject of the application, have never previously been licensed. The applicant company is a private company. The sole director and shareholder is Mr Adnan Ozbeger. Mr Ozbeger currently operates other premises in the area known as “Europa Limited”. This premises is operated as a restaurant. The company has held a licence since September 2001. Mr Ozbeger also had interests in a restaurant called ‘Nomad’ in the Downtown shopping centre in Auckland. The restaurant was operated for approximately eight years. It had a liquor licence from early 2000 until October 2001 when it was sold.
[3] The hours of operation requested by the applicant company are:

Sunday to Thursday 7.00 am to 3.00 am the following day,
Friday and Saturday 7.00 am to 5.00 am the following day.

[4] There were no objections to the application from the Police or the District Licensing Agency Inspector or, indeed, from the Medical Officer of Health. However, formal objections were received from Peter, Donna and Ivan Simonovich who reside at The Quays in Custom Street West. A second objection was received from Simonovich Fisheries Limited which conducts its business in the same area. A third objection was received from The Quays Body Corporate. The objections related to potential noise issues and to a lesser extent, the days and hours of operation.
[5] Mr Ozbeger has a General Manager’s Certificate, as has his partner, Emma Joan Gandy. Ms Gandy will be working in the business as well.
[6] During this hearing, we have heard evidence from Mr Ozbeger. He detailed some of the steps that had been taken to contain noise within the premises. He produced a report from Kingett Mitchell Limited, Resource and Environmental Consultants.
[7] During the cross-examination of Mr Ozbeger it became apparent that the objectors’ concern could be met by the signing of an undertaking. Accordingly, proceedings were adjourned to allow negotiations to take place. In the event, an agreement has been reached. The Authority wishes to express its appreciation to the parties for resolving the issue.
[8] Two matters need to be commented upon. The first is that the licence which is about to be issued will be for a period of twelve months. During that time the operation of the business will be monitored. If there are difficulties of any type in relation to the escape of noise, or indeed the conduct of the licensed premises, then these will be grounds for opposition to any renewal.
[9] The second matter is that as a director of Mojo, Mr Ozbeger has signed an undertaking. It has been confirmed with him that this is a solemn document. Any breach of such an undertaking, would be regarded by this Authority as being a sign of unsuitability to hold a licence.
[10] The terms of the agreement are:

• [i] That outdoor trading will cease at 10.00 pm in accordance with the Auckland City Council outdoor seating licence;
• [ii] That windows will close at 10.00 pm on Sundays to Thursdays, and 11.00 pm on Fridays and Saturdays, or when music is being played indoors;
• [iii] No use of outdoor speakers after 10.00 pm;
• [iv] The applicant undertakes to comply with noise conditions of lease and the noise standards provided for in the Auckland City Council Central Area Proposed Plan.
  

[11] Bearing that undertaking in mind, and taking into consideration the criteria listed in s.13(1) of the Act, we now grant the licence to enable the applicant company to sell and supply liquor to any person present on the premise described in the licence, for consumption on the premise.
[12] Ms Simons, on behalf of the objectors, has waived the objectors’ right to any appeal. Accordingly the licence can issue immediately. The Inspector has advised us that there are no other relevant clearances which require to be obtained. We should point out that the premises have been ready for opening as a tavern since December of last year. They have been operated as an unlicensed café during the lunch hour for some time.
[13] The applicant’s attention is drawn to s. 25 of the Act. The company is obliged to display a sign attaching to the exterior of the premises so as to be easily ready by persons outside each principal entrance, stating the ordinary hours of business during which the premises will be open for the sale of liquor. A copy of the licence (which will be attached to this decision), and of the conditions of the licence is required to be attached to the interior of the premises so as to be easily read by persons entering through each principal entrance.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 6th day of May 2002

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

mojo.doc(aw)