BREWER’S LICENSE

Evening Star, Issue 20610, 9 October 1930, Page 8

BREWER’S LICENSE

RIGHT OF REFUSAL CHALLENGED [Pxk Unhid Pbiss Association.] WELLINGTON, October 9. The Court of Appeal is engaged hearing argument in the case of Knud Chistian Jorgensn, of Auckland, merchant, against the Minister of Customs. Plaintiff represents a certain syndicate known as the New Zealand Pilsener Syndicate, formed for the purpose of establishing in New Zealand a brewery for the manufacture of light Pilsener ale, and is desirous of obtaining a brewer’s license under section 28 of the Finance Act. ■, On March 11 this year the syndicate made application to the Customs Department for a brewer’s license in respect of premises proposed to be erected at Opaheke, in Auckland, such premises not being situate within or within five miles of the boundary of a licensed district. The Comptroller of Customs replied that the Minister regretted that he was not able to approve of the application for such license. The solicitors for the plaintiff then applied to the Custome to ascertain the reason for refusal of the Minister’s approval, but the Customs Department replied declining to set out the grounds of such refusal. On May 27 the syndicate renewed its applicatoin for a license, but again was informed by the_ Customs Department that the decision already given would not be departed from. Plaintiff issued an originating summons, asking the opinion of the court on the following questions:—(l) Has the Minister of Customs the absolute right to refuse to approve the granting of a brewer’s license under the Finance Act, 1915? (2) Has the Minister the right to refuse an application, except as governed by the Finance Acts of 1915 and 1917? (3) Is the Minister of Customs entitled in his unfettered discretion to refuse an application for a license on grounds other than those contained in the Finance Act, and without alleging any grounds for such a refusal? (4) If the Minister refuses an for a license, has the applicant any right of appeal? The matters concerned in the summons being of some importance, the case was ordered by Mr Justice Blair to be removed into the Court of Appeal, where it is now being argued. For the plaintiff appeared Mr D. M. Findlay and Mr W. Perry; for the defendant the Solicitor General (Mr Fair, K. C. On the bench were the Chief Justice (Sir M. Myers) and_ Judges Herdman, Blair, Smith, and Kennedy.