Ferguson v Shoreline Holdings Limited [2003] NZLLA 366 (27 May 2003)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Ferguson v Shoreline Holdings Limited [2003] NZLLA 366 (27 May 2003)

Last Updated: 1 April 2010

Decision No. PH 366/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s.132 of the Act for cancellation of on-licence number 60/ON/190/2002 issued to SHORELINE HOLDINGS LIMITED in respect of premises situated at 3 Brighton Mall, New Brighton, Christchurch, known as “Motown & Duffy Duck Bar”

BETWEEN MARTIN FERGUSON

(Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector)

Applicant

AND SHORELINE HOLDINGS LIMITED

Respondent

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at CHRISTCHURCH on 12 May 2003

APPEARANCES

No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent
Mr M Ferguson - Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector - applicant

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Mr Martin Ferguson, a Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector, for cancellation of an on-licence issued to Shoreline Holdings Limited in respect of premises situated at 3 Brighton Mall, New Brighton, Christchurch, known as “Motown & Duffy Duck Bar”.

[2] The grounds for the application are twofold.

[3] Firstly, it is alleged that the licensed premises have been conducted in breach of Part VI of the Act. In particular, it is alleged that on six occasions when the premises were visited, no holder of a General Manager’s Certificate was present.

[4] Secondly, it is alleged that the conduct of the licensee was such as to show that it was not a suitable entity to hold the licence. In particular, it was alleged that the company had been struck off, that the company had operated without the duty manager being present, and the company had failed to comply with the statutory requirements in relation to the renewal process.

[5] We have heard evidence from Mr Ferguson to the effect that Shoreline Holdings Limited was struck off the Companies Register on 15 November 2002.

[6] Mr Ferguson gave evidence that he made routine inspections between 17 January 2002 and 6 January 2003. On six separate occasions it was found that there was no duty manager present, who was the holder of a General Manager’s Certificate. This is a serious breach of the provisions of s.115 of the Act.

[7] The unsatisfactory situation was aggravated by the fact that when the applicant company applied to renew its on-licence, it did not notify the application publicly, and it did not supply a fire safety report.

[8] The final matter before the Authority is that the company no longer has tenure of the building. It has effectively ceased to trade. This has been confirmed by the absence from the hearing of any representative of the company. Our understanding is that the owners of the building have themselves now applied for an on-licence in respect of the premises.

[9] We have indicated to the Inspector that it is our intention, in our next Annual Report, to suggest that in future when a new on-licence is issued, any on-licence in respect of the same premises will automatically be cancelled. In this case, there is clear evidence that the grounds have been established, and it is desirable that orders be made.

[10] The Authority orders that on-licence number 60/ON/190/2002 issued to Shoreline Holdings Limited is now cancelled.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 27th day of May 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Motown.doc (md)