Ruapehu hotel [2003] NZLLA 417 (13 June 2003)

Last Updated: 22 July 2010

Decision No. 417/2003 –

418/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of applications by CHRISTINE BARBARA KILLEEN for on and off-licences pursuant to ss.7 and 29 of the Act in respect of premises situated at 7 Seddon Street, Raetihi, known as “Ruapehu Hotel”

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

DECISION

These are applications by Christine Barbara Killeen, for on and off-licences pursuant to ss.7 and 29 of the Act in respect of premises at 7 Seddon Street, Raetihi, known as “Ruapehu Hotel”. The general nature of the business to be undertaken is that of a hotel.

Public notification of the applications did not attract any objections or notices of desire to be heard, but reports in opposition to the grant of the licences have been received from the Police, and the Inspector for the Ruapehu District Licensing Agency.

The business changed hands at the end of last year, and applications for temporary authorities were lodged with the District Licensing Agency in December. The applications were in the names of the partnership of Christine and Barry Killeen. These temporary authorities were sought consequent upon a lease agreement being entered into between the applicant and the property owner in November 2002.

Upon making application for on and off-licences, Mr Killeen was advised that the Police, on the basis of past his convictions, would oppose his involvement in the operation of the business. In the circumstances Ms Killeen elected to seek the licences in her name only.

No application was made to renew the previous on and off-licences, which were due to expire on 16 April this year. As a consequence, no lawful trading in liquor would have been possible since that date. Papers on file reveal that the business did trade after the licences expired. This trading was allegedly undertaken contrary to advice from the Agency Inspector.

The applicant contends that conflicting information was received from different elements within the Ruapehu District Council, which led to confusion over her ability or otherwise to trade. These trading activities have led to the Police and Agency opposition to the applications.

It is not our intention to apportion blame; it would appear that there may have been an element of uncertainty on both sides. Clearly it is desirable that this matter be resolved promptly.

Equally clearly, it is evident from the papers accompanying the application that Ms Killeen, whom we are told has previous experience in the operation of licensed premises, appears to have been remiss in discharging her responsibilities and obligations under the Act in an acceptable manner.

We must say that the matters raised by the Police and District Licensing Agency Inspector have very properly been brought to our attention.

The offences and enforcement sections set out in Part VIII of the Act provide for significant monetary penalties, or a period of imprisonment, where liquor sales are undertaken without the appropriate licence to do so. We would enjoin the applicant to familiarise herself with this part of the legislation to ensure that no such lapse occurs in the future.

Having said that, we point out that reports from the Police and Inspectors, made pursuant to ss.11 and 33 of the Act, which raise matters in opposition to applications, do not have the same status as objections lodged pursuant to ss. 10 and 32.

It is not, therefore, necessarily incumbent upon us to convene a public hearing in terms of s.106(1). Given the circumstances, and having regard to the observations we have made in this decision, we have decided to deal with the matters on the papers.

We are satisfied as to the matters to which we must have regard as set out in ss.13 and 35 of the Act, and we grant the applicant the on and off-licences sought. Copies of the licences setting out the conditions to which each is subject are attached to this decision.

The licences may issue immediately.

We point out that should the operation of the business again bring it to the attention of the enforcement authorities, we would expect from them a prompt application, pursuant to s.132 of the Act for variation, suspension or cancellation of the licences.

The applicant’s attention is drawn to ss.25 and 48 of the Act obliging the holder of on and off-licences to display:-

1. A sign attached to the exterior of the premises, so as to be easily read by persons outside each principal entrance, stating the ordinary hours of business during which the premises will be open for the sale of liquor AND
   
2. A copy of each licence, and of the conditions of each licence, attached to the interior of the premises so as to be easily read by persons entering through each principal entrance.
   

DATED at WELLINGTON this 13th day of June 2003

_________________
B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Ruapehu.doc.(apb)