Kharel [2012] NZLLA 519 (22 May 2012)

Last Updated: 25 June 2012

[2012] NZLLA PH 519

IN THE MATTER of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by RADHIKA KHAREL pursuant to s.118 of the Act for a General Manager's Certificate

BEFORE THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY

Quorum: Ms J D Moorhead
Mr P M McHaffie

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 27 April 2012

APPEARANCES

Mrs R Kharel – applicant
Miss M McLeod – Auckland District Licensing Agency Inspector – to assist

DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY

[1] This is an application by Radhika Kharel for a General Manager's Certificate. The application was filed with the Auckland District Licensing Agency on 13 June 2011. It was supported with a copy of the required Licence Controller Qualification issued on 18 May 2011 together with a reference from her employer at the “Curry Village Restaurant”.

[2] The Inspector’s report dated 4 July 2011 incorrectly noted that the Police had opposed the application. It transpires however, that the opposition related to Dhab Kharel who lives at the same address and is her husband.

[3] At the hearing Mrs Kharel provided a further reference from her employer confirming that she works as a waitress and that she has been working closely with the duty manager to gain practical experience. Mrs Kharel advises that she has been working at the “Curry Palace” in St Helliers, Auckland for the last six months but prior to that she has worked for the same company at their Remuera restaurant for two years before she stopped to have a family.

[4] In the main Mrs Kharel fulfils the requirements set out in s.121 of the Act. During the course of her evidence however she was extremely hesitant and unable to adequately answer questions put to her about her responsibilities as a duty manager under the Act. This was no doubt due in part to her nervousness at appearing in a court room situation.

[5] While we believe that Mrs Kharel does have the knowledge and capabilities to manage a restaurant such as the one where she is employed, we feel that she could benefit from having a little more time to gain confidence in that role. For this reason we have decided to adjourn the application for a period of six months. We see no reason why she should not be appointed as a temporary or acting manager during the adjourned period provided the provisions of the Act in relation to such appointments are complied with.

[6] If there are no difficulties arising then we would anticipate that the application could be granted on the papers in six months time. The application is adjourned accordingly.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 22ND day of May 2012

B M Holmes
Secretary

Radhika Kharel.doc(aw)