Licensing Committee Decision Reversed

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31256, 31 December 1966, Page 16

Licensing Committee Decision Reversed

(From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, Dec. 28.

A wholesale licence will be granted at Richmond to Richmond Cellars, Ltd., in spite of an adverse decision made by the Nelson Licensing Committee. t This was decided after the hearing of an appeal before the Licensing Control Commission in Wellington. Previously, the Nelson Licensing Committee had granted a licence to Burns, Philp and Company, but had declined one for Richmond Cellars.

The original hearing was given on June 27 and 28. The final decision was made on the availability of supplies, 'and Burns, Philp, having an import licence, apparently received preference because of this.

There is nothing to suggest that Burns, Philp, and Company, Ltd., would be in any better position to get an import licence for the Richmond business than would Richmond Cellars, Ltd., and the extent to which they can divert supplies is by no means clear. On the other hand, there is the evidence of availability from other sources,” the judgement says. “The Commission has found that a wholesale licence is needed to serve the public in the locality of Richmond. The licence was made available principally to serve the general public rather than the licensed trade, that is, the new business will be substantially that of a domestic wholesaler.

“The evidence shows, as is indeed well known, that there are no real difficulties about supplies of vodka, gin, New Zealand wines and beer, all produced in New Zealand.

What shortages there are relate to whisky, brandy, rum and imported wines. There are in New Zealand a number of importing wholesalers with agencies for whisky and other liquors, who import to sell to other wholesalers and to the hotels.

“It is their duty to distribute their supplies in accordance with public demand, that is, to licensed liquor outlets. The Committee was entitled to assume that these merchants would distribute their supplies equitably throughout the country, and, in our opinion, should have done so. “Since the Committee decided the issue on grounds which, for the reason given above, we regard as untenable, the whole matter is now at large and it rests w ! th the Commission to decide between the two applicants. “In determining which applicant should get a licence, the dominant question is the public interest, including such matters as which site will be most convenient to the public, whether both suggested premises are fully up to standard, and which of the two applicants is likely to give the best service to the public. On the question of service, we think some weight can properly be given to the fact that one company will be managed by one of the owners with a personal interest in the conduct of his own business.

“Weighing up all these factors, and particularly the fact that we regard Richmond Cellars, Ltd., site as definitely more suitable, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal. The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Committee is reversed, and the application by Richmond Cellars, Limited, for the wholesale licence at Richmond is granted.”