The High Court has revoked the off-licence of a bottle store at a contentious South Auckland site following an appeal brought by the Auckland Alcohol Licencing Inspector (Inspector). The case of Singh 13 Investments Limited [2025] NZHC 2868 concerned a Thirsty Liquor located in Māngere East, a vulnerable community known to have high levels of alcohol-related harm and incidents.
Her Honour Gardiner J found that the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) had erred in its decision to uphold the decision of the District Licensing Committee (DLC) to grant the licence, and made clear the importance of having proper regard to the object of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (Act) to minimise alcohol-related harm to the smallest possible degree.
The application had faced significant opposition from the community, including local schools, residents, and health agencies, citing concerns about alcohol-related harm and the proximity to sensitive sites like schools and childcare centres.
The DLC granted the licence for one year, noting the applicant met minimum requirements but expressed concerns about the premises’ impact on the community.
ARLA Decision:
ARLA upheld the DLC’s decision, finding the applicant suitable based on compliance with legal obligations and operation without breaches in over two years.
ARLA dismissed broader concerns about alcohol-related harm, finding no evidence that the harm was being directly caused by the premises.
High Court Findings:
The High Court agreed with the Inspector, and found that ARLA had erred by:
- Failing to consider the object of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 as a standalone test, as required by s 105 of the Act.
- Conflating alcohol-related harm with issues of amenity and good order, which led to it requiring evidence of a direct causative link between the premises and the harm, a standard not required by the Act. If there is a real risk of harm from the grant of the licence, the object of minimising harm is engaged.
- Failing to ask the essential question of whether issuing the licence was consistent with the object of minimising alcohol-related harm, given the location of the premises: opposite two schools and adjacent to a third, the low socioeconomic status of the area, the intensity of existing off-licences in the locality, and the evidence of alcohol-related harm in the community presented to it.
- Confining its analysis of the object of the Act to the first limb (that alcohol is sold, supplied, and consumed safely and responsibly) and finding this was met merely because it was confident the operator would comply with its legal obligations (for example not selling to minors of intoxicated persons). It therefore failed to engage properly with the second limb of the object: that the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol is minimised.
Evidence presented by the Inspector, the Medical Officer of Health, local schools and the community showed a real risk of harm due to the premises’ proximity to schools, high density of off-licences, and alcohol related crime and medical incidents in the area.
Outcome:
The High Court revoked ARLA’s decision and denied the off-licence application, citing:
- The real risks of harm to young people due to the premises’ proximity to schools.
- Alcohol related harm in the community, including crime, medical incidents, and social issues.
- The likely improvement in the amenity and good order of the locality if the off licence were not granted.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled that granting the licence would be inconsistent with the object of the Act, which aims to minimize alcohol related harm, and found the risks posed by the premises unacceptable.
This represents a strong decision for communities feeling the effects of alcohol-related issues, and justifies the position taken by the Inspector to continue to challenge decisions which do not properly engage with the requirements of the Act.
