Executive Director, Public Health v Meers

[2007] WASCA 187

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Relevant considerations
3. › Duty to take into account mandatory considerations
4. › Whether decision-maker failed to consider relevant matter or merely attributed no weight to it
5. › Distinction between ignoring a consideration and weighing it
1. Liquor Licensing
2. › Extended trading permit
3. › Sunday trading
4. › Discretion to grant or refuse application
5. › Public interest
6. › Harm minimisation
7. › Whether primary judge failed to take into account alcohol-related harm
8. › Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), ss 5, 33(1), 60(4)(g), 69(8a), 76, 97
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal on question of law only
3. › Whether complaint about weight given to relevant consideration raises question of law
4. › Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), s 28(2)

Quick Take

A complaint about the weight attributed to a relevant consideration in the exercise of a liquor licensing discretion does not raise a question of law for the purposes of s 28(2) of the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA). Where a decision-maker expressly considers evidence but decides to accord it no weight in the circumstances of the particular case, that does not constitute a failure to take into account a relevant consideration. The dissent ([name withheld]) would have held that dismissing a relevant consideration as irrelevant on an erroneous logical basis does constitute such a failure.