Wong and others, re [2008] NZLLA 1350 (26 September 2008)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Wong and others, re [2008] NZLLA 1350 (26 September 2008)

Last Updated: 8 February 2010

Decision No. PH 1350-1353/2008

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of four applications by ADRIAN LINDCOLN WONG, THOMAS IMPARATO, CAITLIN NICOLE WILSON and PHILLIP RUSSELL CRAIG pursuant to s.118 of the Act for General Manager's Certificates

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge E W Unwin
Member: Dr J Horn

HEARING at DUNEDIN on 23 September 2008

APPEARANCES

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicants
Mr A S Mole – Dunedin District Licensing Agency Inspector – in opposition

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] Before the Authority are four applications for General Manager’s Certificates. The names of the four applicants are Adrian Lindcoln Wong, Thomas Imparato, Caitlin Nicole Wilson and Phillip Russell Craig.

[2] Pursuant to s.119(2) of the Act, an Inspector must enquire into and file with the District Licensing Agency a report on the application. Experience has shown that the most efficient way of completing a report is to interview an applicant. In this way the Inspector should be able to gain an understanding of the applicant's knowledge of the Act as well the applicant’s appreciation of type of conduct expected of a manager.

[3] In each of the above four cases each applicant failed to respond to requests to attend the interview process. Accordingly the applications were set down for a public hearing. None of the applicants appeared at the hearing and no explanation was received for the non-appearance.

[4] It follows that there is no corroborative evidence to establish the criteria set out in s. 121 of the Act, and in particular the applicant’s character and reputation, as well as experience in controlling licensed premises. When applicants do not appear and no explanation is given for their non-appearance the clear inference is that they have lost interest in pursuing their application. Accordingly, each application is now refused.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 26th day of September 2008

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Dunedin GMC(2).doc