Executive Director of Health v Lily Creek International Pty Ltd & Ors

(2000) 22 WAR 510; [2000] WASCA 258

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Liquor Licensing
2. › Grant of licence
3. › Unrestricted hotel licence
4. › Intervention by Executive Director of Public Health
5. › Whether potential for harm or ill-health must be proved on balance of probabilities
6. › Weighing and balancing of primary and subsidiary objects
7. › Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), ss 5, 33, 41(1)(b), 69(8a), 73(2), 74(1)(b), 97(2)
1. Liquor Licensing
2. › Objects of the Act
3. › Primary objects and subsidiary objects
4. › Whether amendment elevating s 5(1) objects to 'primary' made s 5(2) objects subsidiary
5. › Interrelation of objects requiring weighing and balancing exercise
6. › Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), s 5
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Distinction between admissibility and weight
4. › Whether expert opinions based on research and experience were 'mere conjecture, guesswork or surmise'
5. › Evidence on the ultimate issue
6. › Whether relationship between alcohol availability and consumption within ordinary knowledge of the court
1. Evidence
2. › Standard of proof
3. › Civil standard
4. › Distinction between inference and conjecture
5. › Whether inference drawn from past facts constitutes conjecture
6. › Relevance of predictions falling short of balance of probabilities

Quick Take

Under the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), the Licensing Authority must take into account the potential for harm or ill-health to people due to the use of liquor irrespective of whether that prospect is proved on the balance of probabilities; the primary objects in s 5(1) take precedence over the subsidiary objects in s 5(2), and a weighing and balancing exercise is required where conflict arises. Expert opinions based on inferences drawn from past facts and research cannot be dismissed as 'conjecture, guesswork or surmise', and the principles governing admissibility of expert evidence must not be conflated with the assessment of weight.