Beynon v Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation [2026] QCAT 43

[1] For the following reasons, the Tribunal determines that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the present matter and the proceedings are dismissed.

[2] A letter dated 19 April 2024 from the respondent to the applicant stated that the respondent was investigating ('the investigation') a complaint regarding:

(a) an alleged breach of s 226 of the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) ('the Liquor Act') - failure by a person to comply with a condition specified in a licence or permit;

(b) an alleged breach of s 231(1)(a) of the Liquor Act - a person made a statement for the Liquor Act that was known to be false or misleading; and

(c) an alleged breach of s 18(1) of the Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Act 1999 (Qld) - unauthorised conduct of Category 1 game,

(collectively, 'the allegations'), in relation to an application submitted by the applicant to the respondent, naming herself on behalf of Queensland Koala Crusaders Inc. on permit reference 242232 in respect of an event on 8 October 2023 held at Griffith University, Nathan Campus.

[3] A letter dated 16 July 2024 from the applicant to the respondent stated various matters in relation to the investigation of the allegations.

[4] A letter dated 1 August 2024 from the respondent to the applicant responded to concerns raised by the applicant.

[5] A letter dated 5 August 2024 from the respondent to the applicant stated that the respondent had finalised the investigation into the alleged contravention of community liquor permit condition and it had determined to issue the permittee with an infringement notice serial number (LIN#4076408), for the alleged offence under s 226 of the Act, noting that the infringement notice contained details of the alleged offence and the prescribed penalty. The letter stated that the licencee had 28 days from the date of the infringement notice to pay the prescribed penalty, or to apply for payment by instalments, or to nominate to have the matter heard by a Court.

[6] An Infringement Notice (LIN#4076408) dated 5 August 2024 ('the Infringement Notice') issued by the respondent stated that the applicant was alleged to have failed to comply with conditions of licence or permit (Code 023) on 23 October 2023 and stated a penalty of $774.

[7] On or about 11 September 2024, the applicant made a complaint to the Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General about the respondent in relation to the investigation.

[8] The subject of these proceedings ('the Subject Decision') is a letter dated 20 September 2024 from the respondent to the applicant which stated that the Infringement Notice would not be waived. Further, it summarised the alleged offending provided as follows:

Summary of offending

...

• The relevant offence on the [Infringement Notice] is "Fail to comply with condition of licence or permit (not adult licence)" pursuant to section 226 of the [Liquor Act]. A copy of the provision is attached.

• Under schedule 1 of the State Penalties and Enforcement Regulation 2014 (Qld), the quantum of the fine for the offence on your infringement notice is 5 penalty units. At the time of the offence, a penalty unit was valued at $154.80. as a result, the fine on the [Infringement Notice] issued to you was $744.

• In terms of the facts of the offence relating to the [Infringement Notice]:

• You were granted a Community Liquor Permit (CLP 242232);

• Conditions 10240973 of the CLP states that "The permittee must provide to OLGR a statement showing liquor purchased and sales, as well as other costs, and detailing profits earnt. Also to be provided is a copy of the confirmation/receipt from Queensland Koala Crusaders Inc confirming their receipt of the total profits from the sale of liquor for the event within 14 days of the event";

• On 8 October 2023, you held a charitable fund-raising event at the Griffith University in conjunction with the Queensland Koala Crusaders Inc (QKC). Liquor was sold under the provision of your CLP;

• On 18 October 2023, you provided a report to OLGR detailing the liquor sales of $821, cost of liquor sold $191.79, Net sales $629.24, plus $225 in cash sales for a total of $854.24, other expenses totalling $1033.51 for a Net loss of $179.27. The formula used was $854.24 - $1033.51 + $179.27;

• At a later date, a statutory notice was received from Square, which confirmed you received a total $1066 into your account less $17.29 administrative fee. This resulted in net sales equalling $1048.71;

• An analysis of the liquor report from yourself confirmed that $769 of liquor was sold, cost of liquor sold was $196.09, with a profit of $572.91 made from the sale of liquor. The formula used was $769 - $196.09 + $572.91. Soft drinks were also sold, which were the property of QKC and totalled $52;

• Other income was from the sale of raffle tickets and cups of tea totalling $245.

• You participated in a record of interview where you were shown the calculations used in determining the profits of liquor sold under the CLP. You stated that your interpretation of condition 10240973 was derived from using Total Revenue less Total Expenses to obtain Profits, which resulted in a nett loss on your calculations. You also stated that if it wasn't the case, then it was poor accounting on your behalf. You stated that no payment of the profits from the sale of liquor had been made to QKC, with the only payment being made of $237 as a donation. This was from the sale of raffle tickets and soft drinks.

• The offence date is 23 October 2023.

On the basis of the above, we are satisfied the evidence supports the issue of the [Infringement Notice].

As you are aware, you now have the option to pay the infringement notice or ask to have the offence heard at court. If you do not pay the infringement notice or commence proceedings in court by 28 September 2024, the [Infringement Notice] will be referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry.

[9] The applicant initiated these proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal') by way of an Application to Review a Decision ('ARD') filed on 14 October 2024. The ARD:

(a) sought review of the Subject Decision;

(b) stated that the Subject Decision was wrong or not properly made for the following reasons:

At least 6 licensing and Investigative Officers of the OLGR have repeatedly failed to follow the Proactive Compliance Plan 2023-23. (Annexure A)

Investigative Officers... have all failed to implement their Investigative Strategies (Annexure B) and to apply same to me despite voluntary information supplied to them from the outset and the Applicant having no history of non-compliance and strong references as to their character and honesty and at all times wanting to "do the right thing".

The evidence supplied to the initiating investigator... was not applied to the matter.

The Director-General is therefore flawed in her statement to the Applicant that the "investigation has been handled in accordance with protocols, strategies and procedural fairness principles".

The decision does not reflect their obligation to demonstrate PROPORTIONALITY in decision-making. The letter ... of 5/8/24 attaching a flawed infringement notice does not provide ANY detail or evidence or reasons for the issuing of the fine.

The fine is an On the Spot Fine, not designed to be applied to a matter the subject of an Investigation.

The fine contains several clerical and factual errors rendering it irrelevant to any breach of Special Condition 10240973 of the Community Liquor Permit 242232, which relates to this investigation. MORE INFO ATTACHED.

In their failure to follow their Proactive Compliance Policy 2023-24 and their Investigative Strategies, the officers concerned and the Director-General have caused significant psychological harm to the Applicant, and continue to so do in their denial of acknowledgement of my formal complaint, lodged 11th September, 2024 via their website.

The decision-making process has not been transparent, clear and customer-focussed at any time since 19th April, 2024, despite the Applicant making several written requests.

The letter of Senior Investigator Shannon Robinson of 5/8/24 fails to provide any detail, reasoning or evidence. When the Respondent was made aware of this fact, he continued to fail to provide EVIDENCE for the decision, providing instead a narrative of facts discussed at interview on 22/7/24 of which NONE comprise evidence of a failure to comply with Special Condition 10240973 of Community Liquor Permit 242232.

The Applicant's early advices that the complainant was vexatious and had displayed aggressive behaviour to the Applicant prior to making the complaint were not "heard" by the QLGR.

Reasons why the Respondent in his letter of 20th September, 2024, chose not to waive the Infringement Notice 4076408 despite evidence of its seriously flawed nature supplied to him on 17th September, 2024.

Why the Respondent [sic] in his letter of 20th September, 2024, refuses to follow the Complaints Management Policy and answer my questions to support my Formal Complaint Lodged 11th September, 2024.

Reasons why the Respondent endorses the flawed opinion of the Director-General in her letter to the Applicant of 1/8/24 that "the investigation has been handled in accordance with protocols, strategies..." in his refusal to acknowledge my right to be heard.

Reasons why Acting Manager Peter Mills in his letter of 20th September, 2024, profiled the Applicant as being a potentially "unreasonable complainant" without first acknowledging the formal complaint lodged 11th September, 2024 and threatens her with "being dealt with accordingly.

Reasons why the Respondent in his letter of 20th September, 2024, has advised staff not to supply the Further Particulars requested by me, when the DG has expressly invited me to do so in her letter of 1/8/24.

That the Respondent provide evidence for the alleged failure to comply with a Special Condition of a Community Liquor Permit in the face of the evidence of the Applicant that the opposite is true.

That the Respondent provide reasons why the the [sic] formal complaint lodged by the Applicant on 11/9/24 remains unacknowledged by him, and by DJAG, generally.

That the Infringement Notice LL4076408 be struck from the record and nullified as being "flawed on its face" and for a lack of evidence of any alleged breach of S.226 at any premises by the Applicant at any time.

That the investigation be deemed invalid, given the lack of evidence, the vexatious nature of the complainant, the demonstrated "confirmation bias" shown by Sharon Leonard, and her and subsequent officers' failure to follow Investigative strategies as part of the Proactive Compliance Plan 2023-24.

[10] At a directions hearing, the respondent raised an issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine the matter.

[11] By directions dated 1 May 2025, the Tribunal directed the parties to file and serve written submissions as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine the matter. Further, the Tribunal directed that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal will be heard and determined on the papers, based on the material filed and written submissions.

[12] The following material was considered by the Tribunal in determining the issue of jurisdiction on the papers:

(a) ARD and attachments filed on 14 October 2024;

(b) submissions of applicant in relation to jurisdiction filed on 6 June 2025;

(c) submissions of respondent in relation to jurisdiction filed on 20 June 2025; and

(d) submissions in reply of applicant in relation to jurisdiction filed on 27 June 2025.

[13] The issue that is presently required to be determined is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter which was initiated by the ARD.

[14] It appears from the ARD and the applicant's submissions that the applicant relies on s 21 of the Liquor Act, and particularly s 21(1)(j) of the Liquor Act, as the basis of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine the matter and to grant the relief sought.

[15] The respondent submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, nor to grant the relief sought by the applicant.

[16] To determine the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, it is necessary to consider the basis of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, which is derived from statute.

[17] Section 9 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('the QCAT Act') states:

(1) The tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with matters it is empowered to deal with under this Act or an enabling Act.

(2) Jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal is -

(a) original jurisdiction; or

(b) review jurisdiction; or

(c) appeal jurisdiction.

(3) Without limiting the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 49A, an enabling Act confers jurisdiction on the tribunal to deal with a matter if the enabling Act provides for an application, referral or appeal to be made to the tribunal in relation to the matter.

(4) The tribunal may do all things necessary or convenient for exercising its jurisdiction.

(1) The tribunal's original jurisdiction is -

(a) the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal by section 11; and

(b) the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal under an enabling Act to decide a matter in the first instance.

(2) The tribunal's original jurisdiction under subsection (1)(b) includes jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal under an enabling Act to review a decision of the tribunal made under the enabling Act.

Note -

See, for example, the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, chapter 3, part 3, division 2.

The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide a minor civil dispute.

[20] Pursuant to s 9(1) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters that it is empowered to deal with under the QCAT Act or an enabling Act. Pursuant to s 9(2) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal is conferred with three specific forms of jurisdiction to hear and determine matters: original, review and appeal.

[21] Pursuant to s 9(3) of the QCAT Act, an enabling Act confers jurisdiction on the tribunal to deal with a matter if the enabling Act provides for an application, referral or appeal to be made to the tribunal in relation to the matter.

[22] Pursuant to ss 10(1)(b) and 10(2) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal's original jurisdiction includes jurisdiction conferred on it under an enabling Act to decide a matter in the first instance.

[23] Section 21 of the Liquor Act confers jurisdiction and power on the Tribunal to review certain decisions. It provides:

(1) The tribunal may review the decisions of the commissioner in relation to -

(a) the grant or refusal of a licence or permit or the renewal of an extended hours permit; or

(b) a review decision under section 142P; or

(c) the refusal to grant an approval for a controller under section 142ZK; or

(d) the specification of conditions in a licence or permit; or

(e) an extended trading hours approval including the grant, refusal to grant or cancellation of the approval or any variation of the conditions of the approval; or

(f) the giving of a compliance notice under section 142ZZD; or

(g) a request under section 142ZZD(8) to amend or revoke a compliance notice; or

(h) the extension of a period of time under section 155AD(7)(b); or

(i) the payment of a fee by instalments under section 209; or

(j) the taking of disciplinary action relating to a licence, the suspension (including urgent suspension) or cancellation of a licence or permit or the imposition or variation of the conditions of a permit; or

(k) the surrender of a licence or permit; or

(l) the suspension, continued suspension or cancellation of an approval for a controller under section 142ZV; or

(m) the grant or refusal of an authorisation under this Act; or

(n) an order directed to a licensee or permittee or a person holding an authorisation under this Act; or

(o) the refusal to grant an application to change an approved risk-assessed management plan; or

(p) a direction to change an approved risk-assessed management plan under section 52A; or

(q) the refusal to grant an application for an approval as an approved manager; or

(r) the refusal to renew an approval as an approved manager; or

(s) the suspension or cancellation of an approval as an approved manager; or

(t) a refusal to give an approval mentioned in section 153(1) or (3); or

(u) a withdrawal of an approval under section 139D; or

(v) a fee payable in respect of a licence; or

(w) allotment or apportionment of liability for payment, or entitlement to refund, of a fee in respect of a licence or permit; or

(x) a decision for which an information notice must be given under part 6AA; or

(y) a decision to refuse, vary or revoke an exemption from the restriction on the sale of rapid intoxication drinks under section 155AK or 155AP.

(2) In exercise of its jurisdiction, the tribunal -

(a) has -

(i) the powers and discretions of the commissioner in respect of the matter under review; and

(ii) the powers otherwise conferred on it by this Act; and

(b) has the duties imposed by this Act on the commissioner in respect of the matter under review; and

(c) is subject to the limitations imposed by this Act on the commissioner in respect of the matter under review.

[24] Thus, pursuant to s 21 of the Liquor Act, the Liquor Act is an enabling Act which confers jurisdiction on the tribunal to deal with a matter, however only to the extent that it provides for an application, referral or appeal to be made to the tribunal in relation to the matter.

[25] Section 21(1)(j) of the Liquor Act gives the Tribunal power to review the decisions of the Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming in relation to:

the taking of disciplinary action relating to a licence, the suspension (including urgent suspension) or cancellation of a licence or permit or the imposition or variation of the conditions of a permit

[26] There is a clear distinction between licences and permits granted under the Liquor Act.

[27] Section 4 of the Liquor Act states that:

licence includes a licence granted or provisionally granted, and a staged development approval issued, under this Act.

[28] Section 4 of the Liquor Act also states that:

permit means a permit granted under this Act.

[29] Part 4 of the Liquor Act specifically provides for the granting of licences under the Act.

[30] Part 4A of the Liquor Act provides for the granting of various types of permits under the Act. In particular, s 100(b) provides that a type of permit that can be granted under the Liquor Act includes a community liquor permit.

[31] Section 107C of the Liquor Act provides that the Commissioner may impose conditions on licences and permits.

[32] Section 226 of the Liquor Act states that:

1. Contravention of conditions of licences etc.

A person who contravenes a condition specified in -

(a) a licence or permit; or

(b) a temporary authority granted under section 125(1)(b); or

(c) an authority given under section 131A(2); or

(d) a car park approval;

commits an offence against this Act.

Maximum penalty -

(a) if the licensed premises or premises to which the licence, permit, temporary authority or authority relates is in a restricted area -

(i) for a first offence - 500 penalty units; or

(ii) for a second offence - 700 penalty units or 6 months imprisonment; or

(iii) for a third or later offence - 1,000 penalty units or 18 months imprisonment; or

(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply - 40 penalty units.

[33] Section 4 of the Liquor Act states that:

disciplinary action, relating to a licence, means -

(a) cancelling the licence; or

(b) suspending the licence -

(i) for a stated period; or

(ii) until further ordered by the commissioner up to a maximum period of 1 year; or

(c) closing the licensed premises, or part of the licensed premises, for a stated period; or

(d) varying the licence by -

(i) stating in the licence a condition to which it is to be subject; or

(ii) otherwise limiting the authority conferred by the licence; or

(da) cancelling an extended trading hours approval endorsed on the licence; or

(e) reducing the times at which the licensee may conduct business under authority of the licence; or

(f) disqualifying the licensee from holding a licence or permit -

(i) for a stated period; or

(ii) until further ordered by the commissioner up to a maximum period of 5 years; or

(g) requiring the licensee to pay to the department an amount of not more than $10,000; or

_Note - _

The department may require the licensee to pay the department an amount of not more than $10,000 for each ground for which disciplinary action is taken - see part 5, division 3, subdivision 3 (Disciplinary action relating to licences).

(h) requiring the licensee to undertake the licensee's course within a stated period; or

(i) reprimanding the licensee.

[34] The present case relates to a Community Liquor Permit which included a special condition, that was granted by the respondent in respect of a specific community event. It appears to be common ground that the relevant community event took place and that, subsequent to that event, the applicant provided information to the respondent in respect of liquor purchased, liquor sales, other costs and profits earned.

[35] Having regard to the grounds set out in s 21(1)(j) of the Liquor Act which may potentially provide the basis for jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the present matter does not involve:

(a) the taking of disciplinary action relating to a licence, noting that the present case relates to a Community Liquor Permit, which is quite distinct from a licence granted under the Liquor Act;

(b) the suspension (including urgent suspension) or cancellation of a licence or permit, again noting that the present case relates to a Community Liquor Permit, which is quite distinct from a licence granted under the Liquor Act; nor

(c) the imposition or variation of the conditions of a permit, because it relates to an alleged breach of a condition of the Community Liquor Permit subsequent to the community event, rather than any challenge or application to the imposition or variation of the condition included in the Community Liquor Permit.

[36] On that basis, s 21(1)(j) does not apply to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to hear and determine the present matter.

[37] For thoroughness, a review of s 21 of the Liquor Act generally does not disclose any other relevant jurisdictional basis which may be applicable to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal in the present matter.

[38] For these reasons, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the present matter.

[39] I note that the applicant requested that, if the Tribunal determined that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the present matter, that it refer the matter to the Ombudsman. That is not something that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to do in the present case.

[40] Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings.

[41] The Tribunal orders that the proceedings be dismissed.