Kordister Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing & Anor

[2012] VSCA 325

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Liquor licensing
3. › Variation of licence
4. › Reduction of trading hours
5. › Harm minimisation
6. › Whether harm minimisation is the primary regulatory object of the Act
7. › Whether direct causal nexus required between licensed premises and anti-social behaviour
8. › Distinction between general evidence, locality evidence and specific incident evidence
9. › Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic), ss 4(1), 4(2), 29(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Objects clauses
3. › Multiple objects
4. › Declaratory statement singling out one object
5. › Whether declaratory statement establishes primacy of singled-out object
6. › Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic), s 4(2)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Relevant considerations
3. › Failure to give full consideration to recommendation of statutory panel
4. › Whether failure was vitiating error
5. › Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic), s 47(1)
1. Administrative Law
2. › No evidence
3. › Tribunal making findings of fact without probative evidence
4. › Whether findings played vitiating role in decision
5. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 98

Quick Take

Harm minimisation is the primary regulatory object of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic) and must be given primacy in any balancing exercise. In variation applications to reduce trading hours, there is a critical distinction between locality evidence (which does not require a causal nexus between the premises and anti-social behaviour) and specific incident evidence (which does). Decision-makers must consider the local, social, demographic and geographic circumstances surrounding premises without requiring that the premises be shown to have directly caused the surrounding harm. General evidence of the relationship between alcohol availability and social harm is also relevant and should not be dismissed merely because it does not establish a direct link to the specific premises.