"Fruit juice more alcoholic than low-strength beer”

Press, 14 December 1985, Page 6

"Fruit juice more alcoholic than low-strength beer”

PA Wellington Analysis of fruit Juice sold in a Wellington coffee bar showed it contained more alcohol than was in some samples of lowstrength beers, a lawyer, Mr Andrew Brown, told the Court of Appeal He was making submissions on behalf of L D. Nathan and Company, Ltd, and Tradespan (N.Z.) Ltd. Both companies are appealing against a judgement of Mr Justice Barker. Mr Brown said the appellants filed proceedings by way of writ and statement of claim on February 22 seeking declarations in relation to two low-strength

beers, Isenbeck Light and Northern Light These were being imported by Tradespan (NZ) Ltd, and sold through Woolworths food supermarkets owned by Nathans.

Mr Justice Barker held in his judgement that the lowstrength beers fell within the term beer in the definition of liquor and that beer included high-strength and low-strength beers. He also held that if there was to be some dispensation in the Sale of Liquor Act in respect of places where low-strength beer could be sold that was a matter for the Legislature. Judgement was reserved

by the Court of Appeal after Mr Brown’s submissions and submissions by Mr John McGrath for the Hotel Association. The Court comprised Sir Owen Woodhouse, president, Mr Justice Richardson and Mr Justice McMullin. Mr Brown said the appellants sought declarations that:

• The named lowstrength beers did not fall within the definition of liquor as set out in section two of the Sale of Liquor Act.

• Any low-strength beer containing 1.7 per cent alcohol by volume (three parts per cent proof spirit) or less did not fall within the definition of beer in the definition of liquor as set out in section two of the act. B Any low-strength beer containing 1.14 per cent alchohol by volume (two parts proof spirit) or less did not fall within the definition of liquor as set out in section two of the act. Mr Brown said that under the food regulations the products did not fall within the definition of beer and could not be labelled beer, using that word on its own, because they both contained less than 1.7 per cent alcohol by volume. However, the product was called low-strength beer, using the

word beer in a generic sense or as the name of the drink which was what regulations 217(4) required. “Evidence was given of various tests done on fruit juices,” Mr Brown said. “And in particular, an analysis that a boysenberry and apple fruit juice, which was in fact sold in a Wellington coffee bar, contained more than 1.01 per cent alcohol by volume. “This was more than the reading for Northern Light in any of the samples, and more than Isenbeck Light in most samples.” For the Hotel Association, Mr McGrath said case history and changes to the act over the years showed that Parliament had determined on a broad definition of liquor in part for ease of enforcement and in part because of social concern at even low alcoholic products being made widely available.

“That approach may well change at some stage, perhaps soon,” he said. “But it is submitted that Parliament is the only body that should change it. Till it does, it is submitted that beer must continue to bear its ordinary meaning and that the low strength beers such as those the subject of these proceedings should be classified as liquor.”