Kumar, re [2005] NZLLA 266 (6 May 2005)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Kumar, re [2005] NZLLA 266 (6 May 2005)

Last Updated: 7 March 2010

Decision No. PH 266/2005

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by RAHUL KUMAR pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a General Manager’s Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at WELLINGTON on 26 April 2005

APPEARANCES

Mr R Kumar - applicant
Mr R S Putze - Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector - in opposition
Sergeant G D Verner - NZ Police - to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Rahul Kumar for a General Manager’s Certificate. Mr Kumar started working at “Star Mart” in Cuba Street in October 2003 as a sales assistant, and he has worked there ever since. He was supported at the hearing by the manager of the outlet. “Star Mart” is a 24 hour convenience store which amongst other products, sells wine and beer.

[2] The application was filed in May 2004. At that time, Mr Kumar’s experience was not great, and he was only 18 years of age. However, the application has to some extent been overtaken by time, in that Mr Kumar is now 19, and will be 20 in less than six months time. He has now had 18 months experience in the conduct of the premises, and on a few occasions, has been appointed as a temporary manager. In his report, the District Licensing Agency Inspector referred to the fact of his age, and his lack of experience in the conduct of licensed premises.

[3] The matter is similar to an application made by Daniel Stuart Goddard in LLA PH 206/2002. That was an application by a young person to be the manager of a “Star Mart” shop. The Authority quoted from the decision of Jade Leon Le Compte LLA 931/2000 in which it was said:

“When considering any application from a younger person it is proper that reporting agencies have due regard to age when reporting to an agency or this Authority. Not every young person may be suitable. Discrimination on the grounds of age may be the subject of proceedings in other jurisdictions but we emphasise that in our view it is appropriate in seeking to contribute to the reduction of liquor abuse (as s.4 requires), that particular scrutiny is made of younger and inexperienced applicants. Their example and influence over patrons and their interaction with older persons inevitably affects the manner of operation of licensed premises. The Authority and District Licensing Agency’s need to be satisfied that the law will be withheld if a certificate if granted.”

[4] In the “Goddard” case we suggested a number of conditions needed to be met. These were that the young person needed to be a minimum age of 18, and to have had at least six months experience working in a licensed premises. In addition he or she would have undergone training by an employer and holder of a General Manager’s Certificate, and completed a course of training on the Sale of Liquor Act. We also indicated that we would expect an applicant to provide a written undertaking that he or she would not utilise the General Manager’s Certificate in any on-licensed premises, without the written approval of a District Licensing Agency Inspector or the Authority. Mr Kumar has given such an undertaking.

[5] We have recently received representations concerning the effectiveness of such undertakings. Both the Wellington Police and District Licensing Agency have pointed out that from an employment and enforcement perspective, such undertakings may be difficult to monitor.

[6] Accordingly we have asked our Secretariat to record the words "Undertaking given" with a reference to the number of the decision on any certificate issued by the Authority in the future. Some District Licensing Agencies have already commenced such a practice. We hope that others will follow the example.

[7] Mr Kumar is considered to be honest and trustworthy by his employer. He has the full backing of his employer and he has carried out the criteria set out in the “Goddard” decision.

[8] In those circumstances we propose to grant the application.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 6th day of May 2005

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Kumar.doc(nl)