Subsonique Bar Limited [2003] NZLLA 733 (29 September 2003)

Last Updated: 22 January 2012

Decision No. PH 733/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by SUBSONIQUE BAR LIMITED pursuant to s.18 of the Act for renewal of an on-licence in respect of premises situated at Unit D, 16 Bakerfield Place, Manukau City, known as “Subsonique Bar”

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 22 September 2003

APPEARANCES

Mr D Boesser - agent for applicant
Mr A Wilkinson - Manukau District Licensing Agency Inspector - to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is an application by Subsonique Bar Limited for the renewal of it’s on-licence in respect of premises situated at Unit D, 16 Bakerfield Place, Manukau City, known as “Subsonique Bar”.

[2] The tavern style licence for this premises was first issued on 12 December 2001. The application represents the first application for renewal and is therefore treated more sensitively than later applications for that reason. In other words the application before the Authority follows the first ‘probationary’ year of operations.

[3] The application for renewal was made without any request to vary any of the current conditions of the licence. The criteria to be considered by this Authority are contained in s.22 of the Act. These criteria are:

(a) The suitability of the licensee:
(b) The conditions attaching to the licence:
(c) The manner in which the licensee has conducted the sale and supply of liquor pursuant to the licence:
(d) Any matters dealt with in any report made under section 20 of this Act.

[4] The application for renewal drew two objections. One was a general objection from the Police. The second objection was from a Dr Gilchrist who carries out a medical practice nearby at 16A Bakerfield Place, further along the shopping mall from the premises.

[5] Dr Gilchrist’s complaint related to inadequate carparking, including illegal parking and parking disputes, the lack of dining facilities, and the fact that he found urine and vomit in the area of his surgery most mornings.

[6] The Police objection was withdrawn some time ago because of a marked improvement in the management and operation of the premises. Before the matter was set down for a public hearing, Dr Gilchrist was written to and advised that he was the only objector. On the one hand it was thought that because this was the first renewal the objection should be given due weight. On the other hand without any other objections, there was concern as to whether the company should be put to the expense of a public hearing.

[7] In the event Dr Gilchrist advised by fax that he was prepared to appear at the public hearing. This fax was dated 20 May 2003. The matter was accordingly set down for a hearing, but Dr Gilchrist did not appear.

[8] At the hearing, evidence was given that a liquor ban which had been proposed by the Council some time ago, has now been put in place for the area. The District Licensing Agency Inspector advised us that this ban would go some distance towards addressing the issues raised by Dr Gilchrist.

[9] Mr Steven Young who is the principal director of the applicant company gave evidence. He produced photographs showing his concern about the inadequate street lighting around the tavern. He said that he had taken his concerns to the local district council.

[10] He also confirmed that many of the problems which arose, came from visitors to the area who were using the large carpark close by. Although he employed between two and four security staff, Mr Young said that he could not be held responsible for all the activities which went on outside the premises. He said many of the young people gathered in their cars and drank and then misbehaved. He supported the liquor ban, and hoped that if it is properly policed, then the concerns that may exist about persons using the carpark may be alleviated.

[11] Mr Young said that he employs two persons with General Manager’s Certificates apart from himself, and as best as he can, he and his staff monitor the carpark. He said trespass notices have been issued where necessary, and that food was offered in accordance with the condition of the licence, and the host responsibility policy.

[12] The premises are operated as a tavern by day, and a night club by night. We also received a supporting letter from a Mr Paul Brennan who was in the Police Force for 16 years, and has been the head of a security business for the last six years. He said that he had visited the “Subsonique Bar” on a number of occasions, and has been very impressed by the low incident rate of fighting and disorderly behaviour compared to other bars in the south Auckland area.

[13] Where persons are not prepared to come before the Authority to support their objection then clearly its weight and probative value is reduced. The complaint cannot be tested by way of cross examination.

[14] In these circumstances, Mr Boesser as agent for the company, has submitted that the company fulfils the criteria set out in s.22 of the Act. We accept that submission. In all the circumstances we have no hesitation in granting the application.

[15] The licence will be renewed until 12 December 2005, being three years from the anniversary date of the licence.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 29th day of September 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Subsonique Bar.doc(afw)