Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming v Farquhar Corporation Pty Ltd

[2018] QCA 202

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Gaming and Liquor
2. › Liquor licensing
3. › ID scanning requirements
4. › Application to alter regulated ID scanning times
5. › Review by QCAT
6. › Whether QCAT erred in law in setting aside Commissioner's decision
7. › Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), ss 3, 3A, 111, 121, 142ZZB, 173EH, 173NA
1. Appeal
2. › Right of appeal
3. › Appeal on question of law only
4. › Distinction between question of law and question of fact
5. › Whether grounds raised questions of law or impermissible challenges to findings of fact
6. › Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), s 35(3)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Relevant considerations
4. › Whether decision-maker required to expressly refer to statutory provision setting out mandatory considerations
5. › Whether failure to expressly refer to original decision-maker's statement of reasons constitutes error of law
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Statutory construction
4. › Whether one statutory purpose has primacy over others
5. › Whether balancing exercise between competing statutory purposes constitutes error of law

Quick Take

A decision-maker exercising powers under the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) is not required to expressly identify the section number setting out relevant considerations; the question is whether the decision-maker had regard to the mandatory consideration. There is no distinction as a matter of law between the approach to exemption from ID scanning and alteration of ID scanning times under s 111. Challenges to the weight given to competing statutory purposes and to findings of fact do not raise questions of law for the purposes of an appeal under s 35(3).