Virsa Limited, re [2008] NZLLA 1226 (29 August 2008)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Virsa Limited, re [2008] NZLLA 1226 (29 August 2008)

Last Updated: 6 February 2010

Decision No. PH 1226/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by VIRSA LIMITED pursuant to s.18 of the Act for renewal of an on-licence in respect of premises situated at Unit 4, Level 2, Sofitel Complex, 8 Duke Street, Queenstown, known as "Spicy Bitez"

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Mr P M McHaffie

HEARING at QUEENSTOWN on 25 August 2008

APPEARANCES

No appearance by or on behalf of applicant
Sergeant K P Newell – NZ Police – in opposition
Ms T J Surrey – for Queenstown-Lakes District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition

DECISION

[1] This is an application by Virsa Limited pursuant to s.18 of the Act for renewal of an on-licence in respect of premises situated at Unit 4, Level 2, Sofitel Complex, 8 Duke Street, Queenstown, known as "Spicy Bitez".

[2] The business trades as a restaurant with hours authorised for the sale of liquor between 11.00 am and 11.00 pm daily. No changes are sought to the conditions of the licence which fell due for renewal on 8 September 2007.

[3] The Police opposed the application on the basis of a conviction incurred by Amanpreet Singh Cheema, the sole director and shareholder of the applicant company. Mr Cheema was apprehended while driving in April 2007 and he registered an excess alcohol level of 862 micrograms per litre of breath. He was fined $1,000, Court costs $130, disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for one year and an order was made to have his vehicle confiscated. He had a previous conviction for a similar offence committed in May 2003 when the level was 824 micrograms per litre of breath. In other words, on both occasions the level was more than twice the permissible maximum of 400 micrograms per litre of breath.

[4] Despite repeated reminders from the Agency the applicant failed to advertise the application for renewal and the file, in its incomplete state, was eventually referred to the Authority for determination.

[5] The Inspector’s report reveals that, although there had been no issues raised in relation to the manner in which the business had been operated, the premises have been closed and the applicant is no longer able to be contacted.

[6] Because the application is opposed we are obliged to proceed with the formality of a public hearing. However, the non-appearance of the applicant, the failure to make public notification, and the lack of contact from Mr Cheema leads us to the conclusion that there is no further interest in pursuing the application for renewal.

[7] We are, therefore, unable to be satisfied as to the matters to which we must have regard as set out in s.22 of the Act and in light of Mr Cheema's liquor abuse record the application is refused.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 29th day of August 2008

_____________________
B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Spicy Bitez.doc(ab)