//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] VCAT 467
plaintiff. The Tribunal found the s.90 grounds proved, proposed suspension of licences held by 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd pending transfer (see [33]), and made disqualification orders: Frederick Hemara...
VCAT found that transfers and management of two Melbourne clubs involved dishonest omissions and concealment of controllers, so that licences were obtained or used by false or misleading representations. The Tribunal suspended the licences pending transfer and disqualified four individuals for periods ranging from 2 to 20 years; one individual (Pignataro) was not disqualified. The decision stresses the centrality of honesty and transparency in licence applications.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1,617 words · generated 19/06/2026
This was an inquiry conducted by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under s.90 of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. The applicant was the Liquor Licensing Unit (Superintendent Peter Bull). The matters concerned two Melbourne licensed venues: Khokolat (Licence No 32208159, 43 Hardware Lane) and Club Cartel (Licence No 31822879, 185–187 Lonsdale Street). Both licences were, at earlier stages, held by 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd.
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The Tribunal (Deputy President Mrs Sandra Davis) examined allegations that 911 Enterprises and various named individuals procured licences by fraud or false representation (s.90(1)(i)); contravened licence conditions (s.92(1)(a)); and that certain persons were not suitable to hold a licence or be involved in management (s.91(1)(k)). The respondents included Victor Lay, Bradley Johnstone, Frederick Hemara, Justin Moran, Ivan Pignataro and the corporate entities connected to them ([1]-[4], [6]-[13], [16]-[21]).
Key findings were:
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on statutory obligation and principle. It emphasised the objects of the Act (to minimise harm from alcohol misuse, to facilitate diverse licensed facilities, and to support responsible development of the liquor industry) ([35]). From that statutory purpose, the Tribunal drew two central normative points:
Honesty and transparency in licence applications are fundamental. The Tribunal expressed that the regulatory framework depends on applicants truthfully disclosing prior convictions and those who will manage or control premises. Without such disclosure, probabilistic probity checks cannot operate effectively and the public protection goals of the Act are compromised ([36]).
Concealment and subterfuge, particularly where coupled with relevant criminal history or repeated non‑compliance, justify disqualification from participating in licensed activities. The Tribunal applied this principle to each individual after evaluating the extent of their dishonesty, participation and criminal history ([36], [39]-[41]).
On the facts, the Tribunal found Lay's omissions and deliberate concealment sufficiently dishonest and causally linked to the grant of licences; Lay had also abandoned Club Cartel leading to breaches, thus Lay warranted a significant disqualification ([6]-[11], [16]-[17], [39]). Johnstone's extensive and recent criminal record and his persistent concealment and participation in complex corporate arrangements to avoid scrutiny led to a 15-year disqualification ([20], [40]). Moran's repeated involvement in s.90 proceedings, his failure to obey two disqualification orders and a contempts sentence led to the longest disqualification, 20 years ([25]-[27], [41]). Hemara's role was judged less central; his lack of understanding and lesser involvement led to a shorter 2-year disqualification ([23]-[24], [37]). Pignataro, who had paid in good faith and later borne financial loss, was not disqualified ([30], [38]).
The Tribunal also rejected a preliminary double jeopardy stay application concerning Moran, referring to s.139 of the VCAT Act as the applicable provision and declining the stay on the oral grounds given ([4]).
Before this decision (as set out by the Tribunal), the Liquor Control Reform Act provided powers to inquire under s.90, to make suitability findings under s.91, and to disqualify persons under s.92. The Tribunal applied those statutory powers to the concrete proof of concealment and false or misleading statements.
After this decision, the practical effect is reinforced: VCAT will treat omissions of criminal history and the concealment of controllers as serious probity breaches likely to support both suspension of licences and substantial disqualification orders. The decision emphasises that tribunals will consider both the seriousness of the dishonesty and the broader statutory objective of protecting the public from regulated premises operated under false pretences ([33], [35]-[36], [39]-[41]).
This decision is a clear example of the Tribunal using s.91/s.92 remedies to protect the integrity of licensing decisions when probity checks were foiled by material non-disclosure.
Paragraph 36: "Honesty of applicants ... is fundamental..."
Plain English: The licensing system only works if applicants tell the truth about their past and who will run the business. If they lie or hide important facts, the system cannot protect the public.
Paragraph 33: "I have found all the grounds ... Accordingly, I propose to suspend the licences held by 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd pending their transfer."
Plain English: The Tribunal decided the allegations were proven and will stop the licences from being used until they are properly transferred to acceptable holders.
Paragraph 39: "I am satisfied ... his conduct has been dishonest ... instrumental in making the applications ... which, if the true facts had been known, would not have been forthcoming ..."
Plain English: Lay lied and hid facts when applying for licences. Because of those lies, licences were granted when they likely should not have been.
Paragraph 40: "Given the nature, extent and recency of his criminal convictions ... a disqualification for a period of 15 years ... is warranted."
Plain English: Because Johnstone has a serious and recent criminal record and used tricks to stay involved in premises, the Tribunal banned him from the industry for 15 years.
Paragraph 41: "Accordingly, he is disqualified for a period of 20 years ..."
Plain English: For Moran’s repeated misconduct and refusal to obey prior Tribunal orders, the Tribunal banned him for 20 years.
Practitioners should note the combination of these factual elements will attract similar treatment:
When these facts are present, the Tribunal is likely to find the s.90 grounds made out, suspend licences pending transfer and impose substantial disqualification periods under s.92.
This deep dive is limited to the decision text of VCAT in Liquor Licensing Victoria v Johnstone & Ors [2003] VCAT 467. The judgment itself does not cite later treatment or how higher courts have treated it. The Tribunal’s findings are primarily fact‑based applications of statutory powers. Practitioners should check subsequent VCAT and appellate decisions for application or refinement of the principles expressed here, especially on proportionality of disqualification periods and the interaction with s.139 arguments. The decision stands as a strong statement of regulatory enforcement priorities at VCAT level: probity, transparency and substantial remedial disqualification when those are breached ([33], [35]-[41]).
Proportionality principles: The Tribunal imposed lengthy disqualifications (15 and 20 years). How will appellate courts analyse whether such long periods are proportionate to the conduct, particularly where some culpability is omission rather than active criminality? The decision does not canvass proportionality in detail beyond factual weighting ([39]-[41]).
Interplay with prior sanctions: Moran had been sentenced for contempt and subject to disqualification orders prior to this s.90 inquiry. The Tribunal took the totality of conduct into account and imposed an additional long disqualification. How future tribunals or courts treat subsequent penalties where prior punishments have been imposed raises double punishment concerns; this decision rejected a stay on double jeopardy grounds but did not fully elaborate the limits of cumulative sanctions ([4], [27], [41]).
Standards of proof for dishonesty and 'procurement by false representation': The Tribunal was satisfied by the material before it. Future cases may explore threshold proof needed to show procurement by false representation where omissions are the main evidence, and the necessary causal link to the grant of the licence ([6]-[13], [33]).
Nominee/partner distinctions and corporate roles: Hemara argued he acted as a partner or nominee and not as a director; the Tribunal doubted his grasp of the Act yet imposed only a 2-year disqualification. The precise boundaries between nominee duties, partnership arrangements and corporate directorship for regulatory disclosure purposes may require further clarification in future decisions ([23]-[24], [37]).
Regulatory capacity and practical enforcement: The Tribunal observed that the regulator cannot realistically investigate all licences in detail given the number of licences ([26]). The decision endorses strong penalties for those who undermine probity checks, but leaves open policy questions about systemic resourcing and preventive measures beyond individual sanctions ([26], [36]).
Conclusion: Liquor Licensing Victoria v Johnstone & Ors [2003] VCAT 467 is a fact‑intensive decision stressing honesty in licence applications and the Tribunal's willingness to impose lengthy disqualifications when applicants use concealment and subterfuge to obtain or operate licences. Practitioners advising clients in the liquor industry should ensure full and frank disclosure in licence dealings and be aware of the significant regulatory consequences where they do not.
Occupational and Business Regulation List - Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 inquiry under Section 90
Bradley Mark Johnstone, 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd, Frederick Benjamin Hemara, Victor Lay, Justin Edward Moran, Ivan Pignataro
The Director, Liquor Licensing Victoria, World Domination Pty Ltd, Tanklord Pty Ltd, Granbow Pty Ltd
( Prepared from revised transcript of oral reasons for decision handed down on 26 March 2003)
1. This inquiry under s90 of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 ("the Act") relates to the operation of 2 licences : Licence 32208159 - which relates to a club known as "Khokolat", located at 43 Hardware Lane Melbourne, and Licence No 31822879 which relates to "Club Cartel", located at 1st and 2nd floor 185-187 Lonsdale St Melbourne. The licensee of both clubs was 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd. In December 2000, the licence relating to "Club Cartel" was transferred to Ivan Pignataro.
2. The application for the inquiry was made on the basis of allegations that the licensee has:
* Contravened the licences and conditions of the licences in breach of s.92(1)(a) of the Act;
* Obtained the licences by fraud and/or false representation in breach of s.90(1)(i) of the Act; and
* Is not a suitable person to hold a licence, pursuant to s.91(1)(k) of the Act.
3. There are 10 particulars in the s.90 application; particulars 1, 2 and 10 deal with "Khokolat"; particulars 3-5 deal with "Club Cartel"; and particulars 6-9 relate to the licensee having unsuitable people in various roles in the company: those people being Victor Lay; Bradley Johnstone; Frederick Hemara, and Justin Moran.
4. At the hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of Victor Lay. Frederick Hemara appeared in person. Mr Bryant of counsel appeared briefly on behalf of Justin Moran solely for the purpose of making the preliminary application that the s.90 application as against Justin Moran be stayed or aborted on the basis of double jeopardy. That application was unsuccessful, for reasons given orally at the time, relating to the terms of s.139 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. Mr Bryant then indicated his desire to make very brief submissions on penalty at the conclusion of the hearing, but sought to be excused in the meantime. Mr Baker of counsel appeared as a courtesy to the Tribunal to make very brief submissions on the question of penalty on behalf of Bradley Johnstone. Mr Eager appeared on behalf of the Applicant. As it happened, the hearing concluded late in the day and Mr Bryant was not able to be contacted in order to make his submissions; he filed brief written submissions on 25 March 2003 and I have taken these into account.
5. I turn first to the allegations concerning "Khokolat".
6. It is alleged that in the application for the transfer of the liquor licence 32208159, the licensee made false and misleading statements by omitting material matters, and including false and misleading matters.
7. In relation to the transfer application, the signatory, Victor Lay, omitted to disclose his prior conviction in 1994 for theft. He also omitted this in his police questionnaire. He admitted this omission when interviewed in September 2002. He also left empty the section requiring disclosure of the details of other persons who would have a management role or exercise control over the business to be licensed, in particular Frederick Hemara and Bradley Johnstone. He admitted this omission, but denied that Bradley Johnstone had any involvement at the time the application was lodged. Lease documents and ASIC records show otherwise and I am satisfied that Bradley Johnstone was involved in 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd at the time, notwithstanding that Victor Lay told police his co-directors were Robert Capogreco and Stephen Hewatt.
8. I am satisfied on the material before me that this allegation is made out.
9. It is also alleged that between September and December 2000, the licensee:
* procured the transfer of liquor licence 32208159 by fraud and/or false representation;
* permitted a person to become a director of 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd without obtaining approval of the Director of Liquor Licensing; and
* failed to exercise sufficient management and control to ensure the conditions of the licence and the Act were complied with.
10. I am satisfied on the material that in around September 2000 Victor Lay, Frederick Hemara and Bradley Johnstone entered into a partnership to jointly own and operate "Khokolat". The parties to the agreement were 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd (of which Victor Lay was the sole director) and Frederick Hemara , and 996 Enterprises Pty Ltd of which Bradley Johnstone was the sole director and company director. The lease was assigned to 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd from the previous licensee, Indulge Consulting; and Victor Lay, Frederick Hemara and Bradley Johnstone were listed as guarantors.
11. On 22/9/00, 996 Enterprises Pty Ltd was registered as the owner of the business name "Khokolat"; and on the same date Victor Lay lodged an application to transfer licence 32208159 to 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd , and also for Frederick Hemara to be endorsed as the nominee. Frederick Hemara was approved as nominee on 12/10/00. The role of Bradley Johnstone was not disclosed in the application, nor was Frederick Hemara's true role disclosed. On 28/12/00 the transfer of the licence to 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd was approved. I am satisfied on the material before me that these allegations are made out.
12. In relation to "Club Cartel" ; it is alleged that Victor Lay, sole director of 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd did not disclose his own prior convictions, nor the involvement of Justin Moran or Bradley Johnstone in the management of the licensed premises. When applying for transfer of liquor licence 31822879 , Victor Lay's application did not disclose his criminal history. In his interview on 16/9/02, Victor Lay admitted that when he signed the police questionnaire he knew that the company that would have control of the licensed premises was 748 Enterprises Pty Ltd of which the directors were himself, Bradley Johnstone and Justin Moran; and that the applicant company 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd did not represent the true ownership of the company that would be in control of the premises. He further admitted he failed to disclose that Justin Moran and Bradley Johnstone would have management control of the licensee company. Victor Lay said he did not mention Justin Moran because m did not want his name on the licence or lease. Victor Lay said he knew Bradley Johnstone had a criminal history and that he had recently been released from prison.
13. I accept that due to the omissions outlined above, the involvement of Justin Moran and Bradley Johnstone in the "Club Cartel" was effectively concealed from police conducting probity checks, and the transfer was therefore not objected to. The transfer of the licence to 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd was granted on 13/7/01.
14. In around 20/7/01 Victor Lay and Bradley Johnstone ceased their involvement in the club as it was not trading profitably; thereafter Justin Moran operated it with Ivan Pignataro as manager. Justin Moran had paid Bradley Johnstone $10,000 for his share of the business and promised Victor Lay a similar amount. Later in July 2001, Justin Moran resigned as director of 748 Enterprises Pty Ltd and Mr Pignataro took his place; however, Justin Moran continued to perform directors' duties and exercise control over "Club Cartel".
15. In August 2001 Justin Moran asked Ivan Pignataro to transfer the licence from 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd to 748 Enterprises Pty Ltd because Mr Moran was a bankrupt and could not be a listed director. When making the application on behalf of 748 Enterprises Pty Ltd , Mr Pignataro listed himself as sole director of 748 Enterprises Pty Ltd; but Victor Lay and Bradley Johnstone were still listed directors. Mr Pignataro then amended the application to show himself as the individual applicant.
16. On 12/12/01, the Director of Liquor Licensing transferred the licence from 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd to Ivan Pignataro; after that time, Victor Lay, Justin Moran and Bradley Johnstone had no further involvement. When interviewed in September 2001, Victor Lay admitted that 748 Enterprises Pty Ltd controlled "Club Cartel" and that he, Justin Moran and Bradley Johnstone were the persons who established and operated the venue. He said the reason 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd had originally applied for the licence was because Justin Moran and Bradley Johnstone did not want their names to appear on licence applications.
17. A further allegation is that between July and December 2001, 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd deserted the premises of "Club Cartel", allowed another person to carry on the business without consent of the director, and allowed others not employed by the to be engaged in the business without the consent of the Director. Victor Lay admitted to police on 16/9/01 that shortly after July he and Bradley Johnstone gave up control of "Club Cartel" and left Justin Moran with sole ownership and control over it. I find on the material before me that these allegations are made out.
18. It is alleged that 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd had unsuitable persons playing various roles in the company and playing various roles in the management of "Khokolat" and "Club Cartel" ; these persons being Victor Lay , Bradley Johnstone, Frederick Hemara and Justin Moran. Their unsuitability arises as follows:
19. Victor Lay is allegedly unsuitable due to his conduct as outlined in the first 5 particulars; failing to declare his own criminal record, the involvement of Bradley Johnstone and Justin Moran and the true involvement of Frederick Hemara; his involvement in the procurement of the 2 licences by false and misleading representations; deserting "Club Cartel" as sole director of 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd, the licensee company; and permitting various breaches of the Act.
20. The unsuitability of Bradley Johnstone's involvement in "Khokolat" and "Club Cartel" arises from his role in procuring the 2 licences by fraud and or false representation; his extensive criminal history (involving theft, fraud, burglary, aggravated burglary, possess, use and traffic amphetamines and cannabis, possess pistol and restricted substance, unlicensed driving, deception from 1995 to 1999) and sentences ranging from community based orders to a 3 year term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months.
21. On the material before me I am satisfied that these allegations are made out.
22. Mr Baker who appeared briefly in order to make a submission on the question of penalty in relation to Bradley Johnstone submitted that there appeared to be little concern of the applicant with the day to day running of the premises at "Khokolat" ; that Bradley Johnstone takes no part in operational procedures and is purely a financial backer. He submitted that Bradley Johnstone's statement reveals his role and his understanding of the corporate arrangements, and that while Mr Johnstone accepted that there should be some period of disqualification, a period of 2 years would be sufficient, from activities set out in s.92(1)(a)-(e) of the Act, so that he could have some role in employment.
23. The unsuitability of Frederick Hemara arises from his role in procuring licence 32208159; and from his role as nominee in failing to have sufficient crowd controllers on 13/9/02;
24. Mr Hemara gave evidence that he was unaware of Victor Lay's criminal record; he said he had disclosed to the Director of Liquor Licensing his own drink driving offence and an assault charge which was dropped ; and that he was allowed to act as nominee. He conceded particulars 1, 2 and 10, but did not agree with (d) in particular 8 in that he said he played no role in management. He said he reports to the manager, that Victor Lay has nothing to do with the business, but that Frederick Hemara was the only one in control. He agreed that Victor Lay had walked away from the business and Bradley Johnstone was not involved. At this point Mr Hemara was cautioned. He agreed that 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd applied for the licence but that at that time that company was not the company which was operating the business. He claimed he signed the cub contract in his capacity as a partner and not as a director of 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd ; he submitted that he had been dragged through the mire by unscrupulous partners and that he ought not to be disqualified.
25. The unsuitability of Justin Moran arises from his role in 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd and role in managing "Club Cartel". He is allegedly unsuitable due to his involvement in the procurement of the licence by fraud; selling liquor at "Club Cartel" without a licence; his record in having been before the Tribunal in 3 s. 90 applications since march 2000; his failure to comply with 2 disqualification orders imposed by the Tribunal ; his conviction for contempt by this Tribunal on 27/9/02 (after a plea of guilty to two charges of contempt, he was sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment wholly suspended for 2 years on the first charge, and on the second charge, placed on a community based order with a requirement that he perform 160 hours of community work). Mr Moran told police on 7/2/02 that he knew he was disqualified and what that meant. He told police that after resigning as director of 748 Enterprises Pty Ltd he continued to promote "Club Cartel" as a nightclub because "Club Cartel" via Victor Lay was employing him to arrange sponsorship negotiations. This was denied by Victor Lay and by the consultants firm Justin Moran said he was working with, Couture Pty Ltd.
26. Mr Eager submitted that the liquor industry is largely unregulated, that there are approximately 12,500 licences in existence, and that it is impossible for the regulator to conduct the kind of investigations conducted here in relation to ascertaining the true picture as to who would be controlling or managing licensed premises. He submitted that for this reasons there was a public interest in imposing severe penalties on persons who provide inaccurate, misleading or false statements in their applications and thereby obtain licences to which they might otherwise not be entitled. He submitted that the conduct of Justin Moran is the worst example of non-compliance with the legislation he had seen, as Mr Moran was alone responsible for 3 s.90 applications out of 17 for the whole State in the past 10 months. It was submitted that Justin Moran was evasive and untruthful even when interviewed in relation to this application, that the only way to prevent him acting dishonestly is to prevent him from working in the industry at all, and the appropriate penalty in the circumstances was a 20- year disqualification under s.92(a)-(f) of the Act.
27. Mr Bryant submitted that Mr Moran has already been sentenced for contempt to a suspended period of imprisonment and to a community based order; that he has no present intention of seeking to be involved in licensed premises, nor to be an employee. However, he is by experience a person who is in contact with people who are licensees. Mr Bryant said that any period of disqualification beyond the period of the suspended sentence should not prevent him from engaging in an occupation outside the liquor industry; he submitted that Mr Moran had already been severely dealt with for contempt arising out of the same facts and circumstances as the s.90 application.
28. In relation to Bradley Johnstone , Mr Eager submitted that he too ought not to be permitted to operate in the industry, as his extensive criminal record was demonstrative of his poor character, his involvement with drug trafficking of particular relevance given the efforts made to avoid such activities in the context of licensed premises, and his persistent attempts to operate in the shadow of the industry so as to avoid detection, . However, he submitted that a disqualification for a period of 15 yrs from activities set out in s.92(a)-(f) of the Act was appropriate in this case.
29. In relation to Victor Lay, it was submitted that his criminal history was certainly much less extensive than that of Bradley Johnstone; however, he had concealed it from the authorities, and continued to deny prior criminal activity until his record, obtained through Interpol, was put to him; the public interest in managers of licensed premises being forthright was not to be overestimated. It was also submitted that Victor Lay was the key person allowing for operations at both licensed premises, that he was the person who purported to be of good character and made applications which in their terms were misleading, and deceptive; and that he allowed the matters the subject of the particulars to occur at the licensed premises with which he was involved. In those circumstances, it was submitted, disqualification for a period of 15 years for activities under s.92(1)(a)-(f) of the Act was appropriate.
30. In relation to Mr Pignataro, there was no application for disqualification; as Mr Pignataro had paid money in good faith to be involved in the business; and was left with its debts, he having to mortgage his parents house to settle debts of the business.
31. In relation to Frederick Hemara, Mr Eager submitted that his role was significantly less than that of Victor Lay, Justin Moran or Bradley Johnstone, but he had became involved in the deceptive applications for licences which, had the true facts been known, would have failed. It was submitted that it was appropriate to impose disqualification for a period of 12 months from activities set out in s.92(1)(a)-(e) of the Act, which would allow him to be employed in licensed premises but not in a management role.
32. In relation to 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd, it was submitted that its licence ought to be suspended pending transfer to appropriate persons.
33. As indicated above, on the material before me, I have found all the grounds set out in the s.90 application to be made out. Accordingly, I propose to suspend the licences held by 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd pending their transfer.
34. Having indicated my satisfaction that a ground exists for making an order under s.91 of the Act, I turn now to the appropriate orders to be made in relation to the individuals below, on the basis that they are acting either as directors, nominees of the licensees or are directly or indirectly concerned in or taking part in the management of licensed premises.
35. The objectives of the Act are to contribute to minimising harm arising from the misuse and abuse of alcohol by providing adequate controls over the supply and consumption of liquor; to facilitate the development of diverse licensed facilities, and to contribute to the responsible development of the liquor industry.
36. Honesty of applicants in making applications for licenses is fundamental to the workability of the regulatory framework contemplated by Parliament, and to the protection of the public. Equally vital to the workability of the framework is the transparency of licences so that it is possible to readily identify those persons and corporate entities who are in fact to operate, manage or take part in the operation of licensed premises. The conduct of most of the individuals involved in this s.90 proceeding has been such as to render them unsuitable, one would have thought, for any role at all in the industry. Aside from Mr Pignataro, and to a lesser extent Mr Hemara, each of the individuals has engaged in subterfuge to procure licences which, had the truth been known, would more than likely not have been issued to the relevant licensees.
37. I turn now to the individuals concerned. As to Mr Hemara, I found his evidence to be somewhat unsatisfactory, although I accept that his role in the procuring of the two relevant licences was less than that of the other protagonists. I was very troubled by his apparent lack of understanding of the requirements of the Act, and consider that he ought to be disqualified for a period of 2 years from the activities set out in s.92(1)(a)-(e) of the Act.
38. As to Mr Pignataro, on the material before me, he is the person who has shown the greatest commitment of the individuals to meeting his financial obligations arising out of his involvement in the licensed premises, and I make no disqualification order in relation to him.
39. As to Victor Lay, I am satisfied on the material that his conduct has been dishonest, in failing to disclose his own criminal conduct; such as to mislead the authorities; that he was instrumental in making the applications which led to approval for transfers of licences which, if the true facts had been known, would not have been forthcoming; that he effectively abandoned 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd, the licensee of "Club Cartel" and was thereby responsible for some of the breaches of the Act. In all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to disqualify him for a period of 15 yrs from activities listed under s.92(1)(a)-(f) of the Act.
40. As to Bradley Johnstone, given the nature, extent and recency of his criminal convictions, his conduct in this case of persistently involving himself in the business of operating licensed premises without the permission of the authorities, based on subterfuge and complex corporate structures to conceal his true involvement, a disqualification for a period of 15 years from activities listed under s.92(1)(a)-(f) of the Act is warranted.
41. As to Justin Moran, whilst I take into account that he had been severely dealt with for contempt by this Tribunal, the purview of the s.90 application is to consider the totality of the conduct alleged against him, in which the failure to comply with 2 disqualification orders of this Tribunal is only a part. The conduct of Mr Moran as set out in the various particulars, along with this being his 3rd appearance in a s.90 application in 10 months, even putting aside the issue of the contempt of the disqualification orders made by this Tribunal, is such as to warrant the conclusion that he ought not to be involved in the industry in any capacity for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, he is disqualified for a period of 20 years from activities listed under s.92(1)(a)-(f) of the Act.
Liquor Licensing Victoria
Johnstone & Ors [2003] VCAT 467
The Tribunal found the s.90 grounds proved, proposed suspension of licences held by 911 Enterprises Pty Ltd pending transfer (see [33]), and made disqualification orders: Frederick Hemara disqualified for 2 years from activities under s.92(1)(a)-(e) (see [37]); no disqualification for Ivan Pignataro (see [38]); Victor Lay disqualified for 15 years from activities under s.92(1)(a)-(f) (see [39]); Bradley Johnstone disqualified for 15 years from activities under s.92(1)(a)-(f) (see [40]); Justin Moran disqualified for 20 years from activities under s.92(1)(a)-(f) (see [41]).