Alliance’s Action To Restrain Commission Dismissed

Press, Volume C, Issue 29638, 7 October 1961, Page 12

Alliance’s Action To Restrain Commission Dismissed

(New Zealand Preu Association)

i WELLINGTON, Oct. 6. , A motion on behalf of the New Zealand Alliance seeking a writ against the Licensing Control Commission prohibiting it from taking any steps to entertain, hear, or determine applications for liquor licences for restaurants in no-licence areas was dismissed by Mr Justice Hutchison in a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court today. “The only question in the case is whether the commission is empowered by the legislation to hear and determine applications for ! restaurant licences to be i operated from premises in i no-licence districts.'' his Honour said.

“Counsel were fully aware, as was I, of the many difficulties in interpretation that can arise in our licensing legislation, which was described by Mr Justice McGregor as a thick growth of legislative jungle.' an expression which the Privy Council thought not inappropriate. “A restaurant licence under section 32 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1960. would fall within the definition of

‘licence’ in section 4 of the principal Act of 1908. “A determination of the electors on the question of licences was first provided rfor by the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, 1893. under which triennial polls were to be taken in the various districts on certain issues. The date remained one to be taken by districts until the passing of the Licensing Amendment Act. 1918.

‘The act contained provision for the determination of the electors of no-licence districts on the questiop of restoration of licences in their districts, which provision still remains in force in section 4 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1949. “The submission for the plaintiff was that sections 146 and 147 of the 1908 act require that section 32 of the 1960 act be read as restricting the grant of restaurant licences to districts other than no-licence districts. "I agree with counsel for the defendants that what we are directly concerned with is the grant of a licence and that we are concerned with

the effect of the grant only indirectly and only in so far as it may affect the question of the grant.

“I think 'that it is section 6 of the 1910 act which sets out directly what follows from the determination of the electors that a district be a no-licence district.

If the legislature wished to permit conditional licences in respect of race meetings to loe granted in no-licence districts, it had to amend section 6 because conditional licences were within those set out in that section. “As far as restaurant licences are concerned I think that when, as we have seen, the legislature amended sections 8 in 1946 to include the new tourist house licences, works canteen licences and wine sellers' licences. and when, in 1960, though it had section 6 in mind,. It did not amend it to include the new restaurant licence, its intention is shown that restaurant licences should not be within the class of licences which it is unlawful to grant in nolicence districts.*’