Singer v Pac Resources Limited [2009] NZLLA 478 (6 May 2009)

New Zealand Liquor Licensing Authority

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

---

Singer v Pac Resources Limited [2009] NZLLA 478 (6 May 2009)

Last Updated: 3 June 2010

Decision No. PH 478/2009 – PH 480/2009

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of applications pursuant to s.132 of the Act for suspension of on-licence number 020/ON/208/2006 issued to PAC RESOURCES LIMITED in respect of premises situated at 22-26 Tuwharetoa Street, Taupo, known as "Kazbar & Gaming"

BETWEEN JAMES MCGROGAN

(Police Officer of Taupo)

AND GRANT ALLAN SINGER

(Taupo District Licensing Agency Inspector)

Applicants

AND PAC RESOURCES LIMITED

Respondent

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by PAC RESOURCES LIMITED pursuant to s.18 of the Act for renewal of an on-licence in respect of premises situated at 22-26 Tuwharetoa Street, Taupo, known as "Kazbar & Gaming"

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

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

HEARING at TAUPO on 27 April 2009

APPEARANCES

Mr G A Singer – Taupo District Licensing Agency Inspector – applicant and in opposition to application for renewal of on-licence
Sergeant J McGrogan – NZ Police – applicant and in opposition to application for renewal of on-licence
Mr A Sciascia – agent for respondent and applicant for renewal of on-licence
Mr E J Foley – on behalf of the Taupo District Council – to assist

ORAL DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] There are three applications for determination by the Authority. The first application is for the renewal of an on-licence issued to Pac Resources Limited (hereafter called "the company") in respect of premises situated at 22-26 Tuwharetoa Street, Taupo known as "Kazbar & Gaming". No changes were sought to the conditions of the licence which fell due for renewal on 12 October 2008. There are also related applications brought by the Police and the District Licensing Agency Inspector for the suspension of the on-licence.

[2] The grounds for the enforcement applications relate to alleged breaches of ss.164, 166, 167 and 171 of the Act. In short summary the applications refer to instances of intoxication violence and general disorder. It is contended that the suitability of the licensee is in question. The incidents are set out in an extremely detailed form. Any respondent would be under no illusion as to the type of allegations that have been made. The business trades as a tavern with hours authorised to sell liquor between 7.00 am and 3.00 am the following day seven days a week.

[3] At the commencement of the hearing we were confronted by an application by the company for an adjournment of all matters. Notification of the hearing of the applications was given well over a month ago and the actual notice of hearing was sent out approximately a month ago. Mr Paul is the director of the licensee company, Pac Resources Ltd. For reasons set out in the adjournment application he was not represented although Mr A Sciascia of the Hospitality Association of New Zealand had stepped in at short notice and given both Mr Paul and us the benefit of his own experience.

[4] Mr Paul had been hopeful of negotiating some form of resolution of the matters rather than having to appear at a public hearing. Mr A Sciascia is based in Tauranga and is a regional manager of the Hospitality Association of New Zealand. He had been helping the company and had discussions with the Agency on the basis of which it was tentatively agreed that if a negotiated settlement was possible the District Licensing Agency would withdraw its opposition to the renewal.

[5] A meeting was attempted with the Police but Sergeant McGrogan was on annual leave and did not return until 15 April, approximately two weeks ago. There was then a meeting but no outcome was possible. The Sergeant advised that according to him there was nothing offered which would have helped towards a negotiated settlement at any event.

[6] The company having found that it was unable to obtain a settlement then looked for representation. Mr Murphy is a licensing consultant in Hamilton. He was out of the country until yesterday. An attempt was made to approach Mr Terry Sievers of Tauranga without success.

[7] The company had made a last minute request for an adjournment prior to the hearing but this was objected to and was refused. The adjournment application was then repeated by Mr Sciascia on the company’s behalf. He did not believe that he was able to represent the respondent/applicant. He accepted that adequate notice had been given. He thought that the company was facing serious allegations and it was important that it be adequately represented. On the other hand he indicated that Mr Murphy had stated that he would be able to prepare a response given time.

[8] After considering the matter we noted that the application was for suspension of the licence only. Secondly that pursuant to s.132(4)(b) of the Act the Secretary of the Authority was required to fix the earliest practicable date for a public hearing of the application. We indicated that it may be that if the matters had to be adjourned it would be some time before the Authority was back in Taupo. We stated our belief that it was important, particularly if there were allegations of unsuitability, that the issues be canvassed as soon as practicable.

[9] For those reasons we determined that the application would proceed but that an opportunity will be given to the applicant/respondent to respond at a later date which we anticipated would be the following week. We accepted that it was always important that a licensee be represented in any case where the existence of the licence was at risk. On the other hand we thought Mr Sciascia had the ability to represent the company but that such a decision was a matter for him.

[10] In the event we declined the adjournment application on the basis that a part heard hearing would give justice to both parties and in particular to the witnesses who were present.

[11] Having heard four witnesses from the Police we then adjourned the hearing to the following week on certain conditions. However, during the day the parties agreed on a course of action which hopefully will lead to the continuation of the licence long term. It is fair to say that based on the uncontested evidence it is clear that there need to be some changes in relation to the operation of the premises.

[12] We thank the parties for reaching a resolution of the matters without requiring the matter to be dealt with at a further hearing. By agreement we confirm that the on-licence issued to Pac Resources Limited will be suspended for a period of three days commencing at 7.00 am on Thursday 4 June 2009 and until 7.00 am on Sunday 7 June 2009.

[13] It is recorded that the company has given an undertaking that it will implement a one way door policy on Monday 4 May 2009. This means that the door to the premises will be closed to incoming drinkers from 2.00 am. Drinkers will be able to leave after that period of time. This initiative will continue for a period of six months and will be reviewed by the parties after that time.

[14] The company has undertaken that the door staff will receive training in matters of host responsibility from the Hospitality Association of New Zealand. We understand that that training programme is in the process of being held.

[15] Finally it is confirmed by consent that the on-licence issued to Pac Resources Limited will be renewed for a period of 18 months. This means that it will fall due again on 12 April 2010 thereby giving all parties the opportunity to monitor the operation from this time forward in the hope that there will be no further opposition to the renewal in 12 months time.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 6th day of May 2009

B M Holmes
Deputy Secretary

Kazbar & Gaming.doc(aw)