Ryan's Family Hotel Pty Ltd at Ryans Hotel [2025] VicLiqComm 4; (13 June 2025)

(i) while he asserts that he has successfully managed venues with strong compliance records (for example, The Deck Geelong), the Commission has been presented with evidence,[49] also disclosed to Mr Zurcas, that he has been the subject of regulatory action on numerous previous occasions, including licence disqualifications, suitability determinations, and a recent EPA prosecution resulting in a conviction.[50] The repeated nature of the breaches at the Premises, when viewed against the backdrop of this regulatory history, gives rise to legitimate concerns about whether lessons from previous compliance failures have been learnt; and

(ii) while the Commission acknowledges the evidence and submissions of Mr Zurcas regarding his financial position (i.e., he is experiencing significant financial hardship, including personal liabilities exceeding the value of his assets, and the business he directed is in administration),[51] they are outweighed by the underlying seriousness of the breaches, their frequency, and their impact.

(b) Mr Zurcas expressly acknowledged that he failed to take appropriate corrective steps when he became aware that the Premises was being poorly managed in his absence. That is, despite recognising the inadequacies of his night managers and acknowledging that the outdoor entertainment area was a source of ongoing problems, he did not sufficiently increase his on-site presence or otherwise adapt his management strategy.

(c) The Commission does accept that Mr Zurcas' geographical distance from the Premises may have created logistical challenges, however the evidence indicates that, once aware of regulatory failings, Mr Zurcas did not take reasonable steps to rectify them in a timely or effective manner.

(d) Mr Zurcas has stated that he no longer holds any directorships in entities associated with licensed venues and does not presently intend to re-enter the industry. In Mr Zurcas' oral evidence, he set out his extensive history in the industry, and current family associations with other licensed venues. He left open the possibility of doing some work with those venues. Without a period of disqualification, there is nothing to prevent him otherwise engaging in the industry. In those circumstances, a disqualification acts as an appropriate specific deterrent to repeating similar breaches.

(e) The Commission is not satisfied that Mr Zurcas's insight and acceptance of responsibility now are sufficient factors to protect against the risk of future similar breaches.

125. Accordingly, and also taking into account favourably the passage of time since the conduct occurred (including the length of this inquiry), the Commission is satisfied that a period of disqualification to 30 June 2026 is warranted to ensure that Mr Zurcas is not involved in the management or operation of any licensed premises during that period.

1. In assessing the appropriateness of the proposed disqualification of Mr Bottazzi, the Commission has had regard to his compliance record. Notably, on 20 July 2009, VCAT imposed a 12‑month disqualification following his unlicensed liquor supply at 'Club Leeds'. Nevertheless, almost 16 years have passed since VCAT's disqualification and unlicensed supply of liquor does not feature in the grounds for disciplinary action in this case.
2. The Commission accepts that the imposition of a disqualification against Mr Bottazzi under section 93D(1)(a)-(e) is appropriate.
3. While the Commission is satisfied that disqualification is an appropriate disciplinary action in this instance, the Commission is not satisfied that the proposed length of disqualification is appropriate.
4. The Commission considers that the 12-month disqualification jointly proposed by the parties exceeds what is necessary to meet objectives of the LCR Act in respect of Mr Bottazzi's involvement. His role, while sufficient to render him a "related person" under section 93D(5), was confined to specific evenings and operational decisions. The Commission considers that it lacked the managerial breadth seen in prior cases involving longer periods of disqualification. In addition, the Commission acknowledges that:

(a) in December 2023, Mr Bottazzi voluntarily stepped away from the hospitality industry and has not worked at a licensed premises since then and has allowed his RSA certification to lapse;[52]

(b) although he is currently working as a company director of a web development group, he is not drawing a wage and is relying financially on his spouse's income;[53] and

(c) there has been a substantial period since this inquiry commenced.

1. The 12-month disqualification period, proposed in the agreement, is for a longer period than necessary to reflect the extent of his role and the gravity of Mr Bottazzi's conduct with respect to the grounds of disciplinary action. In particular: in seeking to achieve general and specific deterrence, and to otherwise facilitate the public protection aims of disciplinary proceedings.
2. A three-month period of disqualification against Mr Bottazzi is a more appropriate and proportionate outcome in all the circumstances, particularly given that Mr Bottazzi has since ceased working in the industry, has not engaged in similar conduct elsewhere, and the Commission accepts his evidence that he has no intention to re-enter the sector in the near future.

1. Under section 93(1)(b), the Commission imposes a fine of $15,000 on Ryans, payable within 60 days of the date of this decision. The Commission considers this penalty proportionate to the gravity and frequency of the contraventions as set out above.

1. Pursuant to section 93D(1), the Commission disqualifies Mr George Zurcas from:

(a) holding a licence or BYO permit (section 93D(1)(a));

(b) being a director of a body corporate that holds a licence or BYO permit (section 93D(1)(b));

(c) being a partner in a partnership that holds a licence or BYO permit (section 93D(1)(c));

(d) having a beneficial interest in the shares or capital of any body corporate that holds a licence or BYO permit (section 93D(1)(d));

(e) taking part in or being concerned in the management of any licensed premises or any body corporate that holds a licence or BYO permit or any licensed club (section 93D(1)(e)); and

(f) being employed by a licensee or permittee in a role that involves the supply of liquor or the supervision of staff (section 93D(1)(f)).

1. This disqualification shall operate until 30 June 2026.

1. Pursuant to section 93D(1), the Commission disqualifies Mr Bottazzi, for a period of three (3) months from the date of this decision from:

(a) holding a licence or BYO permit (section 93D(1)(a));

(b) being a director of a body corporate that holds a licence or BYO permit (section 93D(1)(b));

(c) being a partner in a partnership that holds a licence or BYO permit (section 93D(1)(c));

(d) having a beneficial interest in the shares or capital of anybody corporate that holds a licence or BYO permit (section 93D(1)(d)); and

(e) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, taking part in or being concerned in the management of any licensed premises or any body corporate that holds a licence or BYO permit or any licensed club (section 93D(1)(e)).

• The preceding 135 paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Decision of Mr James O'Halloran (Deputy Chair), Mr Steven Brnovic (Commissioner), and Ms Susan Timbs (Commissioner).

[1] All references to legislation are references to the LCR Act unless stated otherwise.

[2] 'Licensing inspector' is defined in section 3. The licensing inspector in this inquiry is Inspector Andrew Miles of Victoria Police.

[3] Victoria Police submitted 35 alleged particulars with over 600 pages of supporting material.

[4] 'Disciplinary action' and 'grounds for disciplinary action' are terms defined in section 90(1).

[5] Submissions on behalf of Robert Bottazzi, 25 January 2024.

[6] Directions hearing transcript, 16 April 2024, p5.

[7] Undated letter from Tina Doyle, received on 30 July 2024.

[8] Victoria Police, 'Particulars in Support of Application', p2.

[9] Directions hearing transcript, 12 December 2023, p4.

[10] Statement of Senior Sergeant Peter Shallard, 8 July 2024, p2.

[11] Hearing transcript, 17 December 2024, p10.

[12] On 8 November 2024, the Commission received email correspondence from Ben Skinner on behalf of the Administrators that the Licensee company entered into an agreement to sell the business of the Premises to 4 Pints, and that the sale is conditional upon the transfer of the Licence.

[13] See LCR Act, s 44(3): "...a person is not a suitable person to hold, or carry on business under, a licence or BYO permit if the person or, if the person is a body corporate, any director of the person has, within the preceding 3 years - ... been convicted (a) of an offence of supplying liquor without a licence or of supplying adulterated liquor or of an offence against any law relating to customs or excise; or (b) engaged in activities involving the trading in or marketing of liquor in a manner contrary to the provisions of this Act."

[14] West Heidelberg RSL Sub-Branch Inc v Director of Liquor Licensing [2006] VCAT 347; Egan v Director of Liquor Licensing [2007] VCAT 806.

[15] Buzzo Holdings Pty Ltd and Anor v Loison [2007] VSC 31 at [16] (Kaye J).

[17] Whiting v AMC Investments (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2005] VCAT 1830, [21]; See also Raz Pty Ltd & Anor v Director of Liquor Licensing (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2008] VCAT 857, [11], [28].