NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority >> 2006 >> [2006] NZLLA 51

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Ruck, re [2006] NZLLA 51 (15 February 2006)

Last Updated: 17 February 2010

Decision No. PH 51/2006

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by TIMOTHY DAVID RUCK 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 25 January 2006

APPEARANCES

Mr T D Ruck - applicant
Mr R S Putze - Wellington District Licensing Agency Inspector - in opposition
Senior Sergeant G D Verner - NZ Police - in opposition


ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY


[1] Before the Authority is an application by Timothy David Ruck for a General Manager’s Certificate.

[2] Looking at the matter from a general point of view, Mr Ruck fulfils many of the criteria set out in s.121 of the Act. There are no issues about his character and reputation. He has completed a course of training and is now the holder of a Licence Controller Qualification. He has good references from his employer and a work colleague. Mr Ruck has been interviewed by a District Licensing Agency Inspector and he was found to have good knowledge of the Act. He has responded well in the witness box to a number of questions about the responsibilities of being the holder of a General Manager’s Certificate.

[3] The problems with the application are firstly Mr Ruck’s age. He was born on 30 May 1986. Secondly, we have concerns that he wishes to use his General Manager’s Certificate in a very busy inner city bar. Thirdly, when he completed his application which was received on 30 September 2005, he was asked whether he had recent experience in managing licensed premises and he said he had not.

[4] The position is that Mr Ruck began working at Wellington Sports Café in Courtenay Place about 12 months ago. In the short time that he has been involved in the industry, he has obviously done very well. His employers are now keen for him to be the holder of a General Manager’s Certificate. He has had some on the job training and it was about July that he was promoted to being involved in a managerial position within the bar. He was subject to some in-house training. He applied to be the holder of a temporary manager’s certificate but this was rejected, again because of concerns about his age and experience.

[5] His application drew adverse reports from the Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector. Those reports were based mainly on the lack of experience. Over the last three months, Mr Ruck has continued to gain some experience.

[6] Mr Ruck will be 20 next May. He has a good attitude to his responsibilities to the Act. On the other hand, as we have stressed from time to time, there is a considerable difference between the responsibilities of those who work in on-licensed premises as against those who work in off-licence premises, particularly with regard to the issues of intoxication and under age drinking.

[7] In view of the support which Mr Ruck has, and the presentation which he made, we do not intend to decline the application at this time. We would like to adjourn it for a short period. During this time, we hope that Mr Ruck will be given the opportunity to be a temporary manager of the business, thereby continuing to gain experience, as well as giving all parties to monitor his progress. We understand from him that his employers are sufficiently concerned that he will commence work as a temporary manager on Sundays and Mondays only. These are apparently the quietest times for this busy premises.

[8] The application will now be adjourned for four months. This will give Mr Ruck the opportunity to be a temporary manager of the business provided the provisions of s.128 have been complied with. At the end of that period of time we anticipate that Mr Ruck will by then have gained sufficient experience in managing licensed premises, that he could qualify to be the holder of a certificate. If there are no adverse reports received after a period of four months from the Police or the District Licensing Agency Inspector, we propose to grant the application on the papers. We considered imposing a period of six months but in view of the impression we have of Mr Ruck’s maturity, that period has been reduced.

[9] We also take into account that he has been working on these premises for 12 months. If however, there are continual problems, a further public hearing may be necessary. In all other respects the matter now stands adjourned for four months.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 15th day of February 2006

Judge E W Unwin Mr J C Crookston
Chairman Member

Timothy Ruck.doc(aw)


NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZLLA/2006/51.html