//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:sa/SALC/2001/19
defendant. The conditions sought by the intervener (Adelaide City Council) were imposed on the liquor licence. The Court noted that the licensee was fortunate that earlier closure was not ordered and warned...
The Licensing Court imposed conditions on the Royal Admiral Hotel's liquor licence after finding that the licensee had failed to address serious problems with patron behaviour during early morning hours. The Court gave the licensee an opportunity earlier in the year to improve without conditions, but the problems continued. The licensee's director, Mr Harrison, claimed things had improved but the Court found him to be lying and making up evidence as he went. Four independent witnesses gave credible evidence that patrons were still causing disturbances and intimidating people between 5 am and 9 am on weekends. The Court rejected Mr Harrison's last-minute offer to accept lesser conditions, finding it unconvincing. The Judge warned that if the bad behaviour continues, the hotel could lose its licence entirely.
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.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
IN THE MATTER of the Liquor Licensing Act, 1997
IN THE MATTER of an Application for an Intervention by the Adelaide City Council in respect of premises situate at 125 Hindley Street, Adelaide and known as ROYAL ADMIRAL HOTEL.
Counsel for licensee: Mr. R. Ross-Smith with Mr. A. Tropeano
Mr. Harrison is, to put it kindly, a very foolish man indeed. He is also the director of the licensee company which runs the Royal Admiral Hotel in Hindley Street, Adelaide.
The Adelaide City Council asked me to impose conditions on the licence in February 2001 at a time when the licensee company through Mr. Harrison was seeking a transfer. The Council wanted the Court to impose restrictions on the hours of operation because of patron misbehaviour in the past but I declined to do so simply on the basis that the new licensee should be given an opportunity to clean up the hotel and improve its culture and the behaviour of its patrons. That opportunity was given but not sufficiently availed of. That is why I think Mr. Harrison is (and I restrain myself) foolish.
The simple task for him was to exercise management skills to ensure that passers by and proprietors of businesses should not be intimidated by the patronage of his hotel during early morning hours - roughly say, 5 am to 9 am. The main problem was seen as Friday, Saturday and Sunday mornings.
Mr. Harrison claims to have entirely altered the culture of the hotel so much so that there is no longer any intimidation or worry for those affected by patron behaviour. If I am to believe him then apart from a very odd occasion peace and tranquility obtains. Well I reject his evidence. Not only did I think him to be evasive and unimpressive but even as he was giving his evidence I gained the strongest of impressions that he was making things up as he went along. This was particularly so when he valiantly but unsuccessfully sought to justify his total failure to have just one person, security or otherwise, to monitor the behaviour of his patrons during the morning hours that are the subject of concern. He simply did not do so and any explanation he made was plainly unbelievable. When he could see that he did not really have an answer to such an obvious managerial failure he called on the assistance of one Peter, a barman (with security experience) as being in an ideal position to so monitor. This was nonsense and was a recent fabrication. I do not believe Mr. Harrison on his own evidence but there is much more than that.
Four very impressive witnesses gave evidence of no change in patronage of this hotel during the subject hours. It continues to attract ruffians and members of the public continue to be intimidated. They are not lying about this. Despite Mr. Harrison's best (or worst) efforts to suggest they might have an axe to grind and were involved in embellishment as he put it, I come to an entirely contrary view. They are telling the truth and he is not. I have no hesitation in accepting their evidence which well and truly justifies me imposing the conditions sought. Indeed Mr. Harrison is very lucky that I do not close him down earlier. If this outrageous behaviour of patrons continue then he might well find his licence to be at risk.
I have not ignored or failed to take proper account of the witness called on his behalf. It has to be said however that he was speaking of times well outside those of which the Council complains and does not and cannot comment as to the type or behaviour of those patrons at the hotel during the hours in question.
In any event the preponderance of the evidence would lead me to accept as a matter of probability that ruffians from this hotel are causing disturbance and annoyance as alleged.
As a last gasp it appears, Mr Harrison was prepared to offer to accept the imposition of conditions which would not impinge upon his hours but which, he believed, would answer the Council's concerns. Quite frankly I doubt his resolve and I doubt that such imposition would solve the problem. I cannot read his mind but this stance was an extraordinary turn around. Only an hour or so previously he was damning witnesses as being untruthful.
The conditions sought by the intervener (Adelaide City Council) were imposed on the liquor licence. The Court noted that the licensee was fortunate that earlier closure was not ordered and warned that continued outrageous behaviour by patrons could place the licence at risk.