Parbhoo, re [2002] NZLLA 571 (14 October 2002)

Last Updated: 2 October 2010

Decision No. PH 571/2002

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by ANEEL JAWIN PARBHOO pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a General Manager's Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 1 October and 3 October 2002

APPEARANCES

No appearance by or on behalf of applicant
Mr D W Sara – Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Aneel Jawin Parbhoo for a General Manager's Certificate.

[2] When Mr Parbhoo filed his application in July 2001, he produced a certificate from Swain & Associates that he had completed a seminar on the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. He had a good reference from Toto Restaurant, Non Solo Pizza and Monte Cristo Rooms, in Auckland. These premises were said to purvey a modern Italian cuisine to an upmarket corporate clientele.

[3] In addition, at the time of the application, Mr Parbhoo was employed at the Soul Bar and Cristo in the Viaduct Basin. There was no opposition from the Police to the application.

[4] The matter was brought before a public hearing because of difficulties experienced by the Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector in completing an interview with Mr Parbhoo. A total of seven interviews were booked with the Inspector. Mr Parbhoo failed to show on six occasions. When he finally did appear on 22 November 2001, he displayed an unsatisfactory knowledge of his legal responsibilities under the Act. Consequently he was booked to attend a further interview. He agreed to do so, but again failed to appear.

[5] When the case was called on Tuesday 1 October 2002, Mr Parbhoo again failed to appear. A phone call was made to the Soul Bar and Bistro. A further hearing date was fixed for this morning, that is Thursday 3 October 2002, at 9.00 am. The applicant was advised that he would be questioned before the Authority on his knowledge of his responsibilities under the Act.
[6] When the case was called again today, Mr Parbhoo again failed to appear. In those circumstances, the only possible explanation is that he has no interest in furthering the application.

[7] In view of his lack of co-operation and his lack of knowledge about his responsibilities to the Act, we have no hesitation in refusing the application.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 14th day of October 2002

Judge E W Unwin J C Crookston
Chairman Member

ajparbhoo.doc (nr)