Tum-Ra Thai Limited [2003] NZLLA 987 (17 December 2003)

Last Updated: 27 January 2012

Decision No. PH 987/2003

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of a resumption of a hearing of an application by TUM-RA THAI LIMITED pursuant to s.18 of the Act for renewal of an on-licence in respect of premises situated at 3007 Great North Road, New Lynn, Waitakere City known as “Tum-Ra Thai Restaurant”

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 10 December 2003

APPEARANCES

Mr H F Kirk – on behalf of applicant
Senior Constable J Loye - NZ Police - in opposition
Mr C G Taylor - Waitakere District Licensing Agency Inspector - to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application for the renewal of an on-licence issued to Tum-Ra Thai Limited in respect of a restaurant in New Lynn known as “Tum-Ra Thai Restaurant”. The on-licence was first granted on 23 November 2001, and the application has already been the subject of a decision of the Authority being LLA PH 422/2003.

[2] At the earlier hearing, there was no appearance by Mr Kirk on behalf of this company, but the matter was adjourned at any event for three months.

[3] The Authority indicated in its decision that it was concerned about a massive amount of fines which was owed by Mr Kirk personally. Its concern was that there was no attempt apparently being made by Mr Kirk to pay off those fines.

[4] There had also been an objection by Mr P D Swain, but at the last hearing Mr Swain withdrew his objection, because he believed that there was an attempt to be made by Mr John Te Hete to place the business under new management, and pay off the debts.

[5] Mr H F Kirk has duly appeared at the second hearing. He said that the business operated seven days, and that it was run by the family, and it was struggling. He said that following the last hearing, Mr Hete withdrew from the business plan. He had had no further contact with Mr Swain. It is true that he has made no attempt to pay this particular debt, but it was his view that the money was disputed at any event. To our knowledge a judgment has been entered against Mr Kirk, and we believe that bankruptcy proceedings may be in train.

[6] As far as the outstanding fines were concerned, Mr Kirk said that he had paid approximately $2,400 from the fines since that last hearing. This was contrary to the evidence which had been gathered by the Police. A check was made, and it was discovered that the money had gone towards fines owing by Mr Kirk’s wife. It has now been revealed that approximately $3,000 off her fines has been paid since the last hearing. Further payments will continue to be made.

[7] If Mr Kirk is bankrupted then clearly the licence cannot continue, as he is the sole shareholder and the sole director. If he continues to make a regular effort to pay off the fines, then it seems to us this Authority should have no major concerns about his continued suitability to hold the licence. The District Court has a number of ways of enforcing payment.

[8] We have accepted for the moment that the paying of Mrs Kirk’s fines is part of the overall proposal. Therefore it would appear that the concerns about Mr Kirk’s suitability have been sufficiently satisfied for us not to refuse to renew the licence.

[9] Because we still have lingering long terms concerns, and because we believe that as a licence holder, Mr Kirk needs to be accountable, we propose to renew the licence but for a period of two years only. The licence fell due for renewal on 23 November 2002. It will again fall due for renewal in November 2004. During that time, the Authority will need to be satisfied that a genuine attempt has been made to continue to pay off the fines, and that Mr Kirk has been able to arrange an accommodation with Mr Swain.

[10] We note that the criteria for renewing any on-licence relates to suitability, and the manner in which the licensee has conducted the sale and supply of liquor pursuant to the licence. We accept Mr Kirk’s observation that there have been no issues in relation to any licensing matters. The only matter for consideration is the question of suitability.

[11] The application is granted accordingly, but on a limited basis.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 17th day of December 2003

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Tum-Ra Thai.doc(afw)