Matangi Hillcrest Sports Club Incorporated, re [2007] NZLLA 419 (1 May 2007)

Last Updated: 13 February 2010

Decision No. PH 419/2007

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by MATANGI HILLCREST SPORTS CLUB INCORPORATED pursuant to s.64 of the Act for renewal of a club licence in respect of premises situated at Matangi Domain, Matangi, known as “Matangi Hillcrest Sports Club”

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at HAMILTON on 18 April 2007

APPEARANCES

Mr G J White – President Matangi Hillcrest Sports Club Incorporated - applicant
Mr G H Bennett – objector – in person
Mr K G Hallam – objector – in person
Mr A D Parkes – Waikato District Licensing Inspector – to assist

RESERVED DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Matangi Hillcrest Sports Club Incorporated (hereafter called the club) for the renewal of its club licence. The club was originally called the Matangi-Hillcrest Rugby Football Club Incorporated. It changed its name to the Matangi Hillcrest Sports Club in 2001 to give recognition to the fact that it was promoting other sports and activities as well as rugby. The club was first granted a club licence back in 1978. The current licence was granted in 1993 and it has been regularly renewed without opposition since that time.

[2] The current trading hours are for a total of 37 hours a week. The hours appear to be seldom used. They are as follows:

Monday to Thursday 6.00 pm to 10.00 pm

Friday 5.00 pm to 12.00 midnight

Saturday 3.00 pm to 12.00 midnight

Sunday 3.00 pm to 8.00 pm

[3] The Clubrooms are situated on a Council reserve at Matangi and are operated under a lease agreement with the Council. The Club has experienced some problems in the past. In 1989 it was struck off the Incorporated Societies register for a period before being reinstated. In 2004 the club went into recess as the clubrooms had deteriorated to such an extent that they could not be used. The club lacked the funds necessary to carry out the required maintenance.

[4] In early 2006 a group of local residents combined to form a new committee. With assistance from the Council the facilities were brought up to an acceptable standard. A large amount of accounting work was required to complete the various financial statements during the time that the club had been in recess. The club started operating again in May 2006.

[5] The Club’s licence fell due for renewal on 31 July 2006. No changes were sought to the conditions of the licence. There was no opposition from the Police, or Medical Officer of Health, or the District Licensing Agency Inspector. However, public notification attracted 11 written objections from residents in the community. The main concerns of the objectors related to the past reputation of the club. There were allegations of loud music, under age drinking, drink driving and other alcohol related antisocial behaviour. There were also concerns expressed about the excessive trading hours, and the potential for the premises to be used as a tavern.

[6] An attempt was made through the District Licensing Agency Inspector to have the matter resolved by negotiation. A meeting was held between the club and the objectors in November 2006. Four of the objectors attended the meeting. The club undertook to carry out the following measures.

• The club will appoint members to clean the grounds after each event
  
• The club will erect signs with up to date contact names and numbers
  
• The truck parked on site will be removed
  
• Security lighting will be improved
  
• The club will carry out a leaflet drop to residents within a 2 km radius advertising the club and contacts
  
• The bar will not open unless there is a certificated manager present
  

Three of the objectors subsequently withdrew their objections.

[7] Because of the concerns that had been raised, the Inspector researched the file looking for evidence of formal complaints but was unable to find any material which might have supported such a claim. He also checked with the Police but no complaints had been noted. The Inspector observed that because the clubrooms were located in a reserve, many of the issues such as litter and broken glass were attributable to the location of the grounds and modern day society, rather than a direct reflection of the club’s suitability to continue holding a licence.

[8] For his part, while acknowledging that there had been managerial problems in the past, the Inspector was satisfied with the club’s suitability. He noted that there was a willingness to accept advice and comply with all legal requirements. He noted that the current authorised hours were similar to other clubs, and below the Authority’s guidelines for clubs of this nature. He recommended a renewal of the club licence for three years.

The Hearing

[9] The club was represented by its current President, Mr G J White. He spoke of the voluntary work carried out to get the club to its present stage of development. He produced a leaflet which had recently been produced, copies of which had been delivered to all homes in the area. This document confirmed that a new and approachable and proactive committee had been formed, and the club’s goal was to provide a safe and appropriate atmosphere to support the interests of the community on a recreational and leisure basis. Mr White said that the club currently supports up to 50 young people playing boys and girls rugby, two senior teams, two netball teams, touch rugby teams, a fishing and hunting branch, as well as a social club. The club is an affiliated club to the Waikato Rugby Union.

[10] Mr White stated that there were some 200 paid up members and that they were half way through completing the renovations to the club rooms. He said that the club’s focus was on assisting youth in the community in an attempt to give them something to do by participating in sporting and recreational pursuits. He stated that the Club’s rooms were available to be used for meetings, birthdays, weddings and private functions. He noted that the club had applied for two special licences the previous year although only one had been utilised.

[11] Mr Parkes is the Liquor Licensing Inspector for the Waikato District. In addition to his very full report, he gave evidence that the club had a manager with a club manager’s certificate, and that Mr White had completed his training and was expected to make application for a certificate. He said that in the previous 12 months he was unaware of any matters of concerns in the way that the club had been operated.

[12] Three of the objectors were represented at the hearing. Mr G H Bennett confirmed that he had no objection to the club or its ability to have a licence. He gave evidence of the way that the club had been operated previously. He accepted that since the brochure had been delivered, it was now possible to make contact with club officials in the event of issues arising about the operation of the licence. He suggested that the current hours were excessive, but on the other hand had no criticism of the way the club had been managed since it had been rejuvenated. His concerns related to the potential for the club to be turned into a tavern unless it was properly managed.

[13] Mr K G Hallam resides near the club. He stated that when he moved into his home, the club was not operating. He heard that there had been problems in the past, although he had not experienced any trouble since the club had been re-formed. He said that he and his family were in support of the club and would like to see it continue on as it had done in the previous 12 months.

[14] He stated that he would prefer to see the hours limited to 9.00 pm during the week, and 11.00 pm on the weekends, with no liquor sold on a Sunday. He suggested that there might be a review after a six months’ trial with reduced trading hours. Mr Hallam spoke of an incident which had occurred in January 2007 when the club was hosting a private function and members of the public drove onto the reserve causing a disturbance.

[15] Ms A Bennett was unable to attend the hearing but submitted a very full and thoughtful submission. It appears that Ms Bennett is opposed to the idea of having a sports club on the reserve. Regrettably her submission does not carry the same probative value as evidence given at the hearing. This is because of the inability to have the contents tested by way of questions. In general, Ms Bennett was concerned to retain the quality of life and peaceful environment of the area.

[16] She also referred to the fact that prior to 2003 there had been excessive alcohol consumption and consequential disorder. She produced a number of items of documentary evidence to support her assertion. In her submission she spoke about an incident on 3 February 2007 when a large group had spent a sports day drinking, and leaving litter behind as illustrated by photographs that were produced. To be fair, there seems to have been a responsible attempt to clean up the litter, but there were insufficient containers.

The Authority’s Conclusion and Reasons

[17] In determining any application for the renewal of a Club licence, the Authority is required to have regard to the matters listed in s.68 of the Act. These criteria are:

• (a) The suitability of the applicant:
• (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.
  

[18] In this case the issues are the club’s suitability, the conditions of the licence relating to the club’s trading hours, and the report received from Mr Parkes. For the majority of the last three-year period from July 2003, the club has been in recess. Accordingly, there is little evidence of the way that the club has conducted the sale and supply of liquor since the licence was last renewed. The way that the club has been managed over the last 12 months produced a mainly positive response from the objectors.

[19] In general terms, the licensing hours should relate to the days on which and the hours during which the predominant purpose of the Club is conducted. It is accepted that there will be some leeway, but any club must be careful to ensure that it does not promote itself as a tavern. If it does, then the hours may have to be restricted. One of the matters which the Authority must consider when considering an application for a club licence, is the days and hours during which the premises are used for the club’s activities. The Authority must also be satisfied that the predominant purpose is other than the consumption of liquor.

[20] The preferred approach to the issue of suitability is contained in the comments of Panckhurst J in Page v Police (unreported HC V Christchurch AP 84/98 24 July 1998). He stated:

“Section 13(1)(a) provides that the applicant for an on-licence must demonstrate his or her suitability. In other words what is required is a positive finding. That implies an onus upon the applicant to demonstrate suitability. Such suitability is not established in a vacuum but in the context of the particular case: for example, the place, the intended business (here in a difficult central city location), the nature of the business itself, the hours of operation and the intended activities, provide the basis for the assessment of the individual.”

[21] Here we are dealing with a small Club which was set up many years ago to provided sporting facilities and opportunities for the young people in the area. We believe that amateur clubs such as this one deserve all the support and encouragement they can get. In today’s semi-professional sporting and recreational environment with commercial sponsorship, it is hard for amateur clubs to survive and maintain enthusiasm. It is important to distinguish the present committee under Mr White’s leadership from the previous administration.

[22] Anyone who heard the evidence could not fail to be impressed with the enthusiasm of Mr White and his commitment to work hard for the club. It is not easy for an objector to show unsuitability particularly if there are no concerns raised from either the Police or the District Licensing Agency Inspector. By completing training, and accepting accountability through the leaflet, we thought that the club showed a high degree of host responsibility.

[23] In terms of the renewal of the licence we believe it would be unreasonable to refuse to renew the licence on the basis of the evidence before us, particularly in the absence of any proved offending against the Act, and the absence of concerns from the reporting agencies. We are satisfied as to its suitability to continue to hold a club licence. If the club abuses the privilege of holding a licence, or if it fails to carry out the undertakings given at the meeting, then the Inspector or a member of the Police can apply to have the licence suspended or cancelled, or the trading hours curtailed.

[24] As far as the authorised hours are concerned, any licensee is entitled to an expectation that the trading hours will not be altered, unless in response to validly established breaches of the Act, or the unnecessary escape of noise, or other managerial misconduct. The evidence that was presented to us did not undermine our perception that the club has accepted that it cannot function successfully unless it has a professional attitude to its legal and moral responsibilities. These responsibilities relate not just to the members but also the community. The present hours are not excessive in relation to other clubs of a like nature. The evidence did not establish a threshold necessary to review the current trading hours.

[25] Accordingly, the club licence issued to Matangi Hillcrest Sports Club Incorporated is renewed for three years to 31 July 2009 on the existing terms.

DATED at Wellington this day of 2007

Judge E W Unwin Ms P A Ballard
Chairman Member

Matangi Hillcrest Sports Club.doc