NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority >> 2006 >> [2006] NZLLA 880

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

Davis v Quedec [2006] NZLLA 880 (11 October 2006)

Last Updated: 25 January 2012

Decision No. PH 880/2006 –
PH 881/2006

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s.135 of the Act for cancellation of General Manager’s Certificate number 01/GM/109/2002 issued to THIERRY PIERRE QUEDEC

BETWEEN PATRICK JAMES DAVIS
(Police Officer of Kawakawa)

Applicant

AND THIERRY PIERRE QUEDEC

Respondent

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by THIERRY PIERRE QUEDEC pursuant to s.123 of the Act for renewal of a General Manager’s Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Ms P A Ballard

HEARING at KAIKOHE on 25 September 2006

APPEARANCES

Sergeant P J Davis – NZ Police – applicant – and in opposition to renewal of manager’s certificate
No appearance by or on behalf of respondent
Mr J A Thorne – Far North District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition to renewal of manager’s certificate


ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY


[1] Before the Authority are two applications. One is an application by Thierry Pierre Quedec for the renewal of his General Manager’s Certificate.

[2] The second ancillary matter is brought by the Police and is for the suspension of the General Manager’s Certificate on the grounds that Mr Quedec’s conduct has been such as to show that he is no longer a suitable person to hold the certificate.

[3] The position is that Mr Quedec’s General Manager’s Certificate fell due for renewal. Pursuant to the Act the Authority is bound to take into account the criteria set out in s.126. These criteria relate to Mr Quedec’s character and reputation, and any convictions recorded against him since the certificate was issued or last renewed. In addition we are required to consider the manner in which Mr Quedec has managed the sale and supply of liquor pursuant to the licence with the aim of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse. Finally, any matters that are brought up before the Authority from the Inspector or the Police must also be taken into account.

[4] In this case evidence has been produced which indicates that Mr Quedec has been involved with domestic assault matters. The incidents occurred in December 2004 and resulted in convictions in February 2005. Mr Quedec was dealt with by way of a conviction and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon.

[5] It appears that he was then the subject of a Protection Order in respect of two people. The evidence is that on 15 March 2005 he breached the Protection Order and was convicted in the Kaitaia District Court in May of last year. He was fined $500 with Court costs of $130.

[6] The Police have taken the view that because of these incidents there are likely to be anger management difficulties which may well render Mr Quedec unsuitable to be the holder of a General Manager’s Certificate.

[7] The District Licensing Agency Inspector has supplied a report in which he noted that Mr Quedec is no longer employed in licensed premises in New Zealand. He is apparently running premises in Queensland, Australia. More particularly the Inspector has referred to the fact that there is no Licence Controller Qualification on file.

[8] On 1 April last, a new provision in the Act relating to managers’ certificates came into force. Pursuant to s.117A of the Act neither the Authority nor the Agency is able to issue or renew a General Manager’s Certificate unless the applicant holds the prescribed qualification. That qualification is the Licence Controller Qualification. There is no evidence that the applicant holds this and therefore the renewal cannot be granted by law.

[9] The final matter is that Mr Quedec has been unable to appear to support his application. In his absence there has been no satisfactory explanation for the offending referred to earlier. In all the circumstances the application for renewal is refused.

[10] That means that the application for the cancellation of the licence has been rendered nugatory because there is no certificate to be cancelled.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 11th day of October 2006

Judge E W Unwin Ms P A Ballard
Chairman Member

Thierry Quedec.doc(aw)


NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZLLA/2006/880.html