Hunua Bowling Club [2010] NZLLA 845 (10 August 2010)

Last Updated: 12 August 2010

[2010] NZLLA PH 845

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by HUNUA BOWLING CLUB INCORPORATED pursuant to s.64 of the Act for renewal of a club licence in respect of premises situated at Hunua Road, Hunua known as “Hunua Bowling Club”

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Chairman: District Court Judge J D Hole
Member: Mr P M McHaffie

HEARING at PUKEKOHE on 2 August 2010

APPEARANCES

Mr C J Marshall - on behalf of applicant
Mr T N Long - Franklin District Licensing Agency Inspector - in opposition

RESERVED DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

Introduction

[1] The applicant seeks a renewal of its club licence. The application is opposed by the District Licensing Agency Inspector.

[2] The applicant was established as a bowling club on its present site in Hunua Road, Hunua in 1950. There is a single bowling green and associated pavilion. The club is opposite the Hunua Hall and tennis courts. It is surrounded by houses.

[3] A club licence was granted to the applicant by the Licensing Control Commission in March 1990 and issued by the Authority in December 1990. The licence provided for summer and winter hours and such other hours as were provided in the standard additional conditions prescribed by the former Licensing Control Commission.

[4] In February 1991 the club made an application seeking more extensive hours. At that time the club had 66 members.

[5] In 1997 the club made an application for renewal of its licence and again sought a variation of conditions seeking more extensive hours.

[6] The current licence provides for the following hours:

1 September to 31 May

Sunday to Friday 8.30 am to 10.30 pm

Saturday and Public Holidays 8.30 am to 12.00 midnight

From 1 June to 31 August

Monday to Friday 5.00 pm to 10.30 pm

Saturday 2.00 pm to 12.00 midnight

Sunday 2.00 pm to 6.00 pm

[7] The club is situated in Hunua and is about 10 kilometres from the nearest tavern which is at Clevedon. As the club is 35 kilometres from the District Licensing Agency’s offices in Pukekohe, it does not receive intensive monitoring.

Opposition

[8] The District Licensing Agency Inspector opposes the application for the renewal of the licence. He claims that, contrary to s.59(2) of the Act, the Authority cannot be satisfied that the predominant purpose for which the premises are or will be used is other than the consumption of liquor. He claims that the premises are used as a tavern. In this regard he noted:

• [a] There is a sign at the entrance of the premises which can be interpreted that the premises operate as a bar; most people seeing the sign would assume that the premises were a tavern, he claims;
  
• [b] In July 2007 the Inspector conducted a compliance audit of the premises by sending a non-member into the premises to purchase liquor. The President of the club served this man with liquor;
  
• [c] At that time the club informed the Inspector that there were only 15 members of the club and during the period ending 30 April 2007 some $45,000 worth of alcohol was consumed in the premises;
  
• [d] In reviewing this application, the Inspector enquired of the club as to the number of its membership and how many of those members were engaged in the playing of bowls. The club’s response indicated that there were 36 playing members and in addition 18 social members. From the accounts for the year ending 30 April 2009 it seems that those members and their guests consumed $57,000 worth of liquor. These accounts indicate that the primary source of revenue for the club is bar receipts. Indeed, they made up more than three quarters of the total revenue of the club. (He noted that the “Buckland Bowling Club” had a larger membership of about 55 persons and generated bar receipts of only $9,000: he claimed that this was the norm for clubs of this nature).
  

The club’s evidence

[9] Mr Marshall, a member of the club gave evidence on its behalf. He accepted that there were problems dating back to 2007 and that there were areas for improvement. He claimed that since 2007 there had been considerable changes in the way in which the club was managed. He gave details of the club’s bowling activities and it was clear that, while membership was in decline prior to 2007, with the introduction of twilight and social bowls, there had been a marked increase in bowling activity. Indeed, it was apparent that the competitive record of the club exceeded that of some other clubs of similar size.

[10] In the course of his evidence it was noted that:

• [a] This was one of the few clubs which have floodlights which allows for evening matches to be played;
  
• [b] Over the last 12 months the club has spent considerable money and time in repairing the bowling green to bring it up to Counties Manukau Bowls standards;
  
• [c] The club is presently looking to update its irrigation system;
  
• [d] The club has invested in a new water pump for the green at a cost of $4,700;
  
• [e] One of the members of the club was successful in securing a position on the Board of Bowls Counties Manukau 2010 which indicates that the club has an active interest in bowls;
  
• [f] If the Authority requires the sign outside the premises to be removed, then it will be removed;
  
• [g] The club endeavours to keep its membership fees low and is able to achieve this through its bar revenue.
  

Authority’s decision and reasons

[11] The Authority was referred by the Inspector to three decisions. In Waihi Beach Memorial RSA Incorporated, NZLLA PH 201-202/2002, the Authority when considering an application for extension of hours stated:

“If a club reaches the stage where its primary income is derived from the sale of liquor it runs the risk of not only losing its identity, it runs the risk of losing its licence all together”.

[12] In Northcote and Birkenhead Tiger’s Rugby League and Sports Club Incorporated NZLLA PH 522/2003, when the Authority was considering an application for extension of hours, it said:

“This case illustrates the fundamental tension which exists between the genuine needs and aspirations of a sporting club to promote and foster its chosen sport, and the requirement to ensure that a club does not become a commercial enterprise, aimed at making a profit from its liquor sales in order to subsidise the club’s activities”

[13] In Mount Roskill Bowling Club Incorporated NZLLA PH 160/2004, where there was an application for renewal of the licence and where membership had dwindled to 22 playing members and 46 social members, the Authority stated:

“In the light of the evidence regarding the reduced bowling activity at the club, associated with its very limited membership, its current hours cannot be justified. We regard the proposed reduction in hours as modest. If the club is able to display an increase in its core activity, then further liberalisation of the trading hours may be allowed.”

[14] To a large extent, the Inspector’s evidence is historical. Certainly, there was the failed compliance audit in July 2007. At that time, it is clear, that playing activity at the club had reduced to a low level and it seems that the predominant activity was the consumption of liquor.

[15] This is a case where the club did reach a stage where it ran the risk of losing its identity as a bowling club. It ran the risk of losing its licence. However, a club’s primary income is only one of the tests used to determine a club’s predominant purpose. Significantly, the bar receipts for the year ended 30 April 2009 indicate that approximately $15 per week was spent by each member on liquor. This contrasts favourably with the 2007 sum of $3,000 per member per annum or $57.70 per week.
[16] In this case, the Authority is satisfied that the primary purpose for which this club now exists is the playing of bowls and that the consumption of liquor by its members is merely part of the social activities associated with that sport. It recognises that the bar receipts enable the club to continue to exist and maintain its present facilities. It also recognises that the bar receipts enable the club to keep its membership fees low (which in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing).

[17] The opposition brought by the Inspector is understandable. However, when one compares the evidence of the Inspector (which as previously indicated was primarily historical) against that of Mr Marshall for the club, the Authority is satisfied that the application for the renewal of the licence should be granted. One of the difficulties faced by the Inspector, of course, is the distance of the club from the premises of the District Licensing Agency and the associated difficulties of monitoring. That, however, is not a reason to refuse this application.

Conclusion

[18] The club licence issued to Hunua Bowling Club Incorporated is renewed for a further period of three years from 5 February 2009 on its existing conditions.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 10TH day of August 2010

B M Holmes
Secretary

Hunua Bowling Club.doc(aw)