Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated, re [2004] NZLLA 114 (25 February 2004)

Last Updated: 20 February 2010

Decision No. PH 114/2004

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by KERERU SPORTS AND CULTURAL CLUB INCORPORATED pursuant to s.53 of the Act for renewal of a club licence in respect of premises situated at 71 Domain Terrace, Christchurch, known as “Kereru Sports and Cultural Club”

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at CHRISTCHURCH on 12 February 2004

APPEARANCES

Mrs F Butler - on behalf of applicant
Mr M Ferguson - Christchurch District Licensing Agency Inspector - to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority is an application by Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated for the renewal of its club licence. The licence was first issued to the Club on 2 October 1998. It has been renewed once, and this is effectively the second such application.

[2] The Club premises are situated at 71 Domain Terrace, Christchurch. The Club operates from a building which is leased from the Christchurch City Council and known as Coronation Hall. The application was filed in September 2002 shortly before the licence expiry date of 2 October 2002. The application attracted a number of public objections. There were no objections from the Police, or from Crown Public Health, or indeed from the District Licensing Agency.

[3] On receipt of the application, the Inspector took the opportunity to discuss the application with Mrs Frances Butler, the president and duty manager of the Club. He reminded the Club of the need to have managers on duty, the requirement to display the licence, and to have a reasonable range of food and to have host responsibility procedures. He also notified the Club that noise from the premises was to be contained at a reasonable level so as not to annoy neighbours.

[4] The objection which was received, was not signed but it was said to be from the owners of six houses in Domain Terrace, Spreydon. The letter was associated with a Mr Steve Mills and Tania Cartney. All dealings since that time have been with Mr Mills. The Inspector arranged to have a meeting with the president representing the Club, together with the Police and Mr Mills. This meeting took place in March 2003. Although it was confirmed that many of the problems referred to by the objectors had ceased, there was a lack of willingness to withdraw the objection.

[5] Regrettably on 2 August 2003, the Club had a late licence for its netball prize giving. As a consequence of the function that night, further issued were raised by Mr Mills on behalf of himself and the other residents.

[6] Because of the objection the matter was set down for a public hearing. However none of the objectors made an appearance at the hearing. Mr Mills delivered a document to the Inspector yesterday. This added some material supporting his original objection. The Club was represented by Mrs Frances Butler. She has been the president and bar manager for the last three years. In addition Mrs P M Pahau, the secretary of the Club, was present.

[7] The Club’s core business relates to sporting activities such as netball and softball. By and large the Club premises are used on a Saturday evening for those particular sports. The Club is also used from time to time for cultural activities as well. The Club has very restricted hours being Fridays, 7.00 pm to 10.00 pm, Saturdays 2.00 pm to 11.00 pm and Sundays 2.00 pm to 10.00 pm.

[8] It is accepted by the Club that one of the causes for concern had been that the Club had leased out the premises to other persons who were not members. When the objections were received, the Club realised the errors of its ways, and indeed it received correspondence from the City Council. An amendment was made to the lease. The Club responded by ensuring that there were no such subleases in the future. So as far as the Club is concerned there are no other problems which would affect the neighbours. As stated, the hours are conservative, and the activities are monitored.

[9] To some extent the Club’s evidence was supported by comments made by the District Licensing Agency Inspector. He reported that over the last three years there have been two noise complaints. One related to a slamming of a door, and the other to the night of 2 August last. We were advised that Armourguard was called to the premises at 9.15 pm on 2 August 2003. There was a stereo which was being played. The Club agreed to reduce the sound level from that stereo. There was a further callout at 10.30 pm, but Armourguard reported that at that time there was no noise.

[10] Mr Mills, in his formal written objection, has taken some issue with the City Council but that is not a matter for us. There was reference to the escape of noise. In the light of the evidence we have received we assume that the reference is to the night of 2 August last.

[11] Mr Mills also made reference to the behaviour of the members, and rubbish left after use of the premises. In terms of behaviour, it has always been a difficulty for any licensee to monitor the activities of patrons once they leave the premises. It is clear to us that if it can be established that patrons have left in such an intoxicated state that their lack of appropriate behaviour becomes inevitable, then some sanction can be applied against the licensee. On the other hand the licensee cannot be held responsible for behaviour carried out by patrons who are in high spirits but who are not intoxicated.

[12] While it is accepted that proprietors of licensed premises must be responsible for ensuring that there is no rubbish in and around the premises; they cannot be responsible for rubbish which is caused or left by patrons away from the premises.

[13] In general terms we take the view that if objections are to have any impact, then it is necessary for the objectors to be present in order to have their evidence subjected to cross examination. If that is not possible, then the probative value of any objection must lose weight.

[14] In this case the criteria for the renewal of the licence are set out in s.68 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 66 of this Act.

[15] The thrust of the objections relate to the suitability of the licensee. Having heard from Mrs Butler, we are satisfied that this licensee is suitable. Mrs Butler did take the opportunity to point out that on one of the occasions where the behaviour of patrons was brought into question, a 50th birthday party was being held close by. It was therefore submitted that there was a possibility that the persons who had misbehaved were not necessarily members of the Club or their guests.

[16] In all the circumstances and having found that the Club is suitable, we have no hesitation in renewing the club licence for the period of three years.

[17] The application is therefore granted.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 25th day of February 2004

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Kereru Sports.doc(afw)