Content
The following information provides an overview of cases decided in the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) relating to breaches of the Agents Act 2003, Liquor Act 1975, the Liquor Act 2010 and the Tobacco Act 1927 . Also listed below are some ACAT decisions in matters where the Commissioner’s decision to refuse a security industry licence have been challenged.
Agents Act 2003 :
Liquor Act 1975 and Liquor Act 2010 :
Security Industry Act 2003 :
Tobacco Act 1927 :
On 30 November 2011, Mr Wayne Rumble pleaded guilty to a charge of carrying on business as a real estste agent without a licence between 13 February 2010 and 16 April 2010, which is a breach of section 18 of the Agents Act 2003 . On 6 December 2011, the A.C.T. Magistrates Court handed down its sentence. The matter was found proven, with no conviction recorded. Mr Rumble was placed on a good behaviour order for 12 months.
On 25 July 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that licensed agent Rumbles Realty Pty Ltd trading as Rumbles Realty had contravened section 75(2) of the Agents Act 2003 . This was on the basis that it employed 2 persons who provided services without the appropriate agents licence or salesperson registration. ACAT also determined that Rumbles Realty had breached an order of ACAT. This order required that Rumbles Realty was not to employ Mr Wayne Rumble to provide services as a real estste agent or salesperson unless he is licensed or registered to do so.
Due to the contraventions, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. On 8 September 2011, ACAT reprimanded Rumbles Realty and ordered that it pay a penalty of $5,000 to the Territory.
Rumbles Real Estate Pty Ltd On 6 December 2010, the A.C.T Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that real estate agent licensee Rumbles Realty Pty Ltd had contravened section 115 of the Agents Act 2003 in that it did not ensure records relating to trust money it held during 2008-2009 financial year (the audit period) in its trust accounts were audited by a qualified auditor within 3 months after the end of the audit period.
Due to the contravention, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline and ordered that the licensee pay a penalty of $1,500 to the Territory.
On 6 December 2011, the A.C.T Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that the liquor licensee Netenterprise Pty Ltd traading as Scullin Supermarket and Liquor had contravened section 110(1) of the Liquor Act 2010 . This was on the basis that the licensee supplied liquor to an underage person (a 15 year old female) on 25 January 2011. ACAT also found that the licensee had supplied section 110(3) of the Liquor Act 2010 . This was on the basis that an employee of the licensee supplied liquor to an underage person (a 17 year old Male) on 11 May 2011.
Due to the contraventions, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. There had been no previous breaches of the liquor laws by the liquor licensee. ACAT ordered that the licensee pay a penalty of $750 to the Territory and that the licensee enter into undertakings for a period of 2 years. ACAT also ordered that the licensee's liquor licence be suspended for a period of 48 hours, commencing at 8am on Thursday 15 December 2011 and finishing at 8am on Saturday 17 December. The licensee was required to display in the front window of the shop a notice of suspension of licence.
On 6 December 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that liquor licensee Hoa Sen Pty Ltd trading as Dickson Liquor had contravened section 110(3) of the Liquor Act 2010 on 3 occasions. This was on the basis that an employee of the licensee had supplied liqour to an underage person (a 17 year old male) on 19 February 2011, 25 February 2011 and 12 March 2011. ACAT also found that the licensee had contravened section 110(1) of the Liquor Act 2010 . This was on the basis that the licensee supplied liquor to 2 underage persons (a 15 year old male and a 16 year old male) on 28 May 2011.
Due to the contraventions, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. There was 1 previous breaach of the Liquor Act 1975 by the licensee in 2005. ACAT ordered that the licensee pay a penalty of $2,000 to the Territory and enter into undertakings for a period of 2 years. ACAT also ordered that the licensee's liquor licence be suspended for a period of 72 hours commencing at 8am on Saturday 14 Janaury 2012 and finishing at 8am Tuesday 17 January 2012. The licensee required to display in the front window of the shop a notice of suspension of licence.
On 13 October 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that liquor licensee Bayden Pty Ltd trading as Corks Liquor had contravened section 110(1) of the Liquor Act 2010 . This was on the basis that the licensee supplied liquor to an underage person (a 17 year old male) on 15 April 2011.
Due to the contravention, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupation discipline. There had been no previous breaches of the liquor laws by the licensee. ACAT imposed a penalty of $500, this penalty being wholly suspended for a period 2 years, as long as there are no further breaches of the Liquor Act 2010 . The licensee was also ordered to provide undertakings for a period of 2 years.
On 6 May 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that liquor licensee the Maram Pty Ltd, trading as The Maram, had contravened section 157(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 on two occasions. This was on the basis that two people under 18 years of age (two 17 year old females) were in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 10 September 2010.
Due to the contraventions, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. The licensee had previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 on 1 occasion. ACAT ordered that the licensee pay a penalty of $4,000 to the Territory.
On 20 April 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that liquor licensee Young Venues Pty Ltd, trading as OJO Cafe and Bar, had contravened section 153(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 on three occasions. This was on the basis that three people under the age of 18 (two 17 year old males and one 17 year old female) were possessing and/or consuming liquor on the licensed premises on 23 July 2010.
Due to the contraventions, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. There were no previous breaches of the Liquor Act 1975 by the current liquor licensee. ACAT ordered that the licensee pay a penalty of $4,500 to the Territory.
On 14 April 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that liquor licensee Trent Richardson, trading as Monkey Bar, had contravened section 157(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 . This was on the basis that there was a person under 18 years of age (a 17 year old female) in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 20 November 2010.
Due to the contraventions, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. The licensee had not previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 . ACAT ordered that the licensee be reprimanded and pay a penalty of $500 to the Territory.
On 30 March 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that liquor licensee Provocare Pty Ltd, trading as Mercury Bar, twice contravened section 157(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 . This was on the basis that there were 2 people under 18 years of age (two 17 year old females) in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 27 November 2010. ACAT also determined that there were two contraventions of section 153(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 as on the same date the two underage persons possessed and consumed liquor on the licensed premises.
Due to the contraventions, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. The licensee had previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 on 1 occasion. ACAT directed that the licensed premises be closed from 6pm on Friday, 15 April 2011 until 6pm Saturday, 16 April 2011.
On 11 March 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that liquor licensee Socrates & Marie Kochinos, trading as Sub Urban, had twice contravened section 157(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 . This was on the basis that there were 2 people under 18 years of age (two 16 year old females) in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 20 June 2010. ACAT also determined that there were two contraventions of section 153(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 , as on the same date the two underage persons possessed and consumed liquor on the licensed premises.
Due to the contraventions, ACAT found that there were grounds for occupational discipline. The licensee had not previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 . ACAT ordered that the licensee be reprimanded and pay a penalty of $500. A penalty of $1,000 was also imposed, but suspended for a period of 2 years, to be paid if the licensee breached the Act within that period. Further, the liquor licensee must comply with comprehensive undertakings for a period of 2 years. These undertakings relate to the licensee’s obligations under the legislation and procedures that the licensee will need to follow to avoid further contraventions of the Act.
On 10 March 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) determined that liquor licensee Domin8 Holdings Pty Ltd had contravened section 157(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 . This was on the basis that a person under 18 years of age (a 16 year old female) was present in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 25 July 2010.
Due to the contravention, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. The licensee had previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 on 3 occasions. ACAT suspended the liquor licence for 48 hours, in relation to the premises those being Meche and ICBM, from 12 noon Friday, 18 March 2011 until 12 noon Sunday, 20 March 2011.
ACAT also directed that the licensee comply with extensive undertakings in relation to its obligations under the legislation and procedures that the licensee will need to follow to avoid further contraventions of the Act.
On 9 February 2011, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) determined that liquor licensee Taligent Pty Ltd, trading as Bar 32, had contravened section 157(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 on 2 occasions. This was on the basis that 2 persons under 18 years of age (two 17 year old males) were present in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 1 May 2010. ACAT also determined that there were two contraventions of section 153(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 , as on the same date the two underage persons possessed and consumed liquor on the licensed premises.
ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. The licensee had previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 on 3 occasions. ACAT ordered that the licensee’s liquor licence be suspended for 48 hours from 6pm on Thursday 24 February 2011 to 6pm on Saturday 26 February 2011. The licensee was also ordered to pay $5,000 to the Territory.
On 18 November 2010, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that liquor licensee Krave Niteclub Pty Ltd, trading as Krave Niteclub, had contravened section 157 of the Liquor Act 1975 . This was on the basis that a person under 18 years of age (a 17 year old female) was in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 15 June 2008.
Due to this contravention, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline and ordered that the respondent pay $2,000 to the Territory.
On 18 November, ACAT also found that the licensee has contravened section 157, 153 and 152 of the Liquor Act 1975 . This related to an underage person (a 16 year old male) being in a bar room without a responsible adult, and the consumption and supply of alcohol to an underage person.
Due to this contravention, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline and suspended the licensee’s liquor licence from 9pm on a Saturday to 5am on a Sunday.
Prior to these matters, the licensee had previously breached section 157 of the Liquor Act 1975 on 1 occasion.
The licensee appealed these decisions to the Appeal Division of ACAT. The Appeal Tribunal upheld all contraventions of the Liquor Act 1975 , except the breach of section 152 (relating to sale of liquor to an underage person). The penalty imposed at first instance was upheld, and Krave Niteclub Pty Ltd was ordered to pay $2,000 and to close from 9pm Saturday 23 April 2011 until 5am on Sunday 24 April 2011.
On 3 November 2010, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) determined that liquor licensee Taligent Pty Ltd, trading as Bar 32, had contravened section 157(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 . This was on the basis that a person under 18 years of age (a 17 year old female) was present in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 13 March 2010.
Due to the contravention, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. The licensee had previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 on 2 occasions. ACAT ordered the licensee to close the premises for 24 hours from 6pm on Saturday 6 November until 6pm on Sunday 7 November 2010.
On 20 September 2010, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) determined that liquor licensee Domin8 Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as Meche, ICBM and North Bar had contravened section 157(1) of the Liquor Act 1975 . This was on the basis that a person under 18 years of age (a 17 year old female) was in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 28 March 2010.
Due to the contravention, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. The licensee had previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 on 2 occasions. ACAT directed the premises trading as ICBM and Meche to close from 12 noon on Friday 24 September 2010 until 12 noon on Saturday, 25 September 2010.
On 27 July 2009, the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) dismissed an application for occupational discipline made by the Commissioner for Fair Trading against Taligent Pty Ltd, trading as Bar 32. The application alleged a breach of section 157 of the Liquor Act 1975 , on the basis that a person under 18 years of age (a 13 year old female) was in the bar room of the licensed premises without a responsible adult on 3 May 2009.
The Commissioner for Fair Trading appealed this decision to the Appeal Division of ACAT. On 11 October 2010, the Appeal Tribunal determined that there had been a contravention of section 157 of the Liquor Act 1975 . The licensee had previously breached the Liquor Act 1975 on 1 occasion. The Appeal Tribunal found that there were grounds for occupational discipline and imposed a penalty of $3,000.
Mr A applied for a security employee licence to patrol, guard, watch or protect property and to act as a crowd controller under the Security Industry Act 2003 .
Mr A applied to the A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) for a review of the Commissioner for Fair Trading's decision. On 1 June 2011, ACAT dismissed Mr A’s application on the basis that it was not in the public interest at this time to grant a security licence.
Mr B applied for a security employee licence to patrol, guard, watch or protect property and to act as a crowd controller under the Security Industry Act 2003 . The Commissioner for Fair Trading refused Mr B’s application, due to his prior criminal history, and particularly because of 2 serious 2005 convictions, of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Dishonestly for Gain Damage Property by Fire/Explosive.
Mr B applied to A.C.T. Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) for a review of the Commissioner for Fair Trading's decision to refuse to issue the licence. On 25 May 2011, Mr B’s application for review was dismissed by ACAT, on the basis that it was not in the public interest for Mr B to have the licence.
When making this decision, ACAT took into account Mr B’s criminal record and the fact that he did not live in the A.C.T. or intend on working in the ACT.
On 12 October 2009, Mr C applied for a security employee licence to patrol, guard, watch or protect property and to act as a crowd controller under the Security Industry Act 2003 . The Commissioner for Fair Trading refused Mr C’s application, due to his prior criminal history. Mr C had 14 criminal convictions. Of particular concern were the 2 convictions for Obtaining Money by Deception in 2007, a conviction for Resisting Officer in Execution of Duty and Destroying or Damaging Property in 2006.
The Commissioner for Fair Trading appealed this decision to the Appeal Division of ACAT. The Appeal Tribunal overturned the original decision of ACAT, determining that Mr C should not be granted a security employee licence. When making this decision, the Appeal Tribunal analysed the public interest test contained in the Security Industry Act 2003 . The Appeal Tribunal, when looking at the public interest test, took into account Mr C’s criminal convictions, character references and the steps he had taken to turn his life around. The Appeal Tribunal commented that those people who work in the security industry are not unlike members of a “private police force” and that the work carries with it significant responsibilities. It was also commented that the public interest test is a high one, and criminal convictions is a vital part of the equation. The question of good standing in the community is also vital.
On 6 December 2011, the A.C.T Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) found that tobacco licensee Netenterprise Pty Ltd trading as Scullin Supermarket and Liquor had contravened section 14(1) of the Tobacco Act 1927 . This was on the basis that the licensee sold a smoking product to an underage person (a 17 year old female) on 11 February 2011 and was reckless about whether the person was underage.
Due to the contravention, ACAT determined that there were grounds for occupational discipline. There were no previous breaches of the Tobacco Act 1927 by the tobacco licensee. ACAT ordered that the licensee pay a penalty of $750 to the Territory and that the licensee enter into undertakings for a period of 2 years.
Top
