1. The application was objected to by the Australian Hotels Association (the AHA).
2. The AHA submitted that not much had changed in respect of the present application, other than the fact the applicant has sought legal assistance in drafting it.
3. The AHA submitted that the applicant could draw little comfort from the Parafield Plaza decision because the proposed premises here are much smaller, the proposal contains far less stringent conditions than in Parafield Plaza, and that unlike the store in Parafield Plaza, Together Mart is not located in a true shopping centre with a common mall.
4. Parafield Plaza concerned a review of a decision by a delegate to grant a packaged liquor sales licence in respect of an Asian‑style supermarket in the Parafield Gardens Shopping Centre. As with this case, the applicant there had to not only establish that the grant of the licence was in the community interest, it also had to establish that it should be granted the exemptions provided by s 38 of the Act. The delegate described it as a finely balance application but was ultimately satisfied that subject to imposing a series of stringent conditions, it was appropriate to grant it.
5. The Court in upholding the delegate's decision stated that in applying s 38(7) of the Act "a licensing authority might find that there is a proper reason to grant a packaged liquor sales licence to a cultural specialist store in premises ordinarily known as or advertised as a supermarket, convenience store or delicatessen".[7]
6. In agreeing with the delegate that it was in the community interest to grant the application, the Court said:

... this case was about an application for a packaged liquor sales licence to sell a range of 30 products of no more than six bottles in any one transaction in a specialist Asian supermarket situated within a shopping centre that could hardly be described as a retail magnet. As such the risk that granting the application could cause appreciable harm to members of the relevant community is slight.[8]

1. Having noted that the Commissioner had granted a packaged liquor sales licence to authorise the sale of takeaway liquor from an Asian‑style store in Prospect in Village Asian Grocery Kimchi Store Pty Ltd as trustee for The Choi & Kwon Family Trust (Kimchi),[9] the AHA submitted that this case was materially different. It pointed out that in Kimchi, the Asian‑style store was the only Asian‑style grocery store in that locality with or without a liquor licence, whereas in this case, there are already two other Asian grocers with liquor licences in the locality applicable to this application.
2. Kimchi concerned a decision by a delegate to grant a packaged liquor sales licence in respect of an Asian‑style supermarket in the North Adelaide Village Shopping Centre. The application proposed a series of conditions limiting the number of lines to 20, limiting the number of products to no more than six bottles or cans in a single transaction, and confining the range to liquor imported from Korea, Japan or China. It also proposed the condition similar to that which this Court imposed in Parafield Plaza stipulating that the business conducted under the licence had to remain an Asian supermarket with the sale of liquor being ancillary to that activity. A factor that the delegate appears to have taken into account in granting the s 38(7) exemption was that there was a limited range of Asian‑style takeaway liquor in the locality.
3. The AHA made reference to observations made by this Court that liquor in supermarkets must remain the exception. It added that the fact that many Asian‑style grocers had transitioned from special circumstances licences to packaged liquor sales licences, did not mean that this presumption had in any way been displaced.
4. The AHA submitted that the applicant had not provided adequate reasons as to why there is proper reason to allow liquor to be sold in its supermarket, and the application should be refused on that basis.
5. It submitted that the applicant had not provided any submissions as to why it should be granted an exemption from the physical separation requirements in s 38 of the Act, and the application must fail for that reason alone.
6. It submitted that the ABS data did not support the sale of any type of liquor other than, perhaps, liquor originating from China.
7. It noted that the proposal recognised that there was some theft of goods from the premises and that the inference could be drawn that there would be some theft of alcohol.
8. It submitted that the applicant's proposed Management Plan raised more questions than it answered, and was unreliable, inconsistent, and in many cases simply wrong. It submitted that there was no real evidence of the applicant's understanding of the legal and social obligations that come with being the licensee of premises of the type here.
9. It noted the many schools in the general vicinity and queried whether the applicant had established the policies and procedures to minimise the harm and potential for harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol. In developing this submission it made reference to the decision of this Court in Hove Sip n Save[10] in which the Court refused an application amongst other reasons, because of the applicant's failure to demonstrate an appropriate appreciation of what the responsible sale of alcohol entails, especially having regard to the proximity of schools to the proposed premises.
10. It submitted that it was significant that within the locality Asian‑style liquor is already available from Lucky Mart, Glynde, and Family Mart SA, Firle, and also from the Dan Murphy's store located only 800 metres away.
11. It noted that 78% of the survey respondents were from outside the locality, which it said demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of Together Mart's existing customers are prepared to travel to purchase Asian‑style products.
12. It submitted that the asserted cultural, recreational or tourism benefits that would flow from the grant of the application were unsubstantiated.
13. The AHA submitted that overall, the applicant had not established that the proposal was in the community interest.
14. The AHA submitted that in the event that the Commissioner was minded to grant the application, conditions should be imposed on the licence consistent with the conditions imposed in both Parafield Plaza and Kimchi to ensure the grant does not set an undesirable precedent and to protect the integrity of the grant of the application in the future.

1. The applicant in reply submitted that it was entitled to re‑apply for a licence following refusal, and the application must be assessed by the Authority on the material before it.
2. It submitted that because its principals have been associated for six years with an existing liquor production and sales licence, the Court's observations in Hove Sip n Save were not apposite to the applicant or the application.
3. It referred again to Parafield Plaza where the Court noted that "members of the relevant community would be attracted to Asian style liquor products that were not specific to their particular Asian ethnicity in the same way as they were attracted to other Asian style products on offer at the supermarket".[11] It noted that Together Mart is not a Chinese grocery store, it is an Asian grocery store.
4. It submitted that the overall content of the Liquor Management Plan was consistent with the application and the risk management processes were consistent with the standards required for a business of the type it proposed.
5. It submitted that the application was for a modest, specialist liquor offering, resulting in greater convenience for customers who shop at the Together Mart premises, and that the grant of the application, with or without the conditions described, was very much in the public and community interest, and would be consistent with recent decisions by the Commissioner.

1. The delegate did not consider that the prior refusal was relevant. He said that "as this is a fresh application that must be determined on its merits on the material before the Authority in line with the requirements of the Act".
2. The delegate referred to Together Mart's database of its customers and based on it he was satisfied that the applicant had correctly identified the locality.
3. Having referred to the other takeaway liquor facilities in the locality, the delegate accepted that there was nothing unusual or concerning about the licence density in the locality and concluded that the application need not be refused on the basis of proliferation concerns.
4. The delegate noted that the applicant had undertaken community consultation by writing to a range of stakeholders and nearby businesses and that no negative responses had been received. He noted that the applicant had undertaken a survey of Together Mart's customers in store, and that the survey indicated support for the proposal. He relied upon this in accepting that there is some community support for the proposal, and in finding that the proposed offering would appeal to a significant number of customers who shop at Together Mart and to members of the relevant community.
5. The delegate noted that 78% of surveyed customers resided outside the locality. He said that it was clear that many of Together Mart's customers will come from beyond a two kilometre radius of the store. This led him to conclude that the AHA's submission that many of Together Mart's customers are willing to travel to obtain Asian‑style products had some force, and stated that he would expect that this would apply to obtaining packaged liquor products of Asian origin as well.
6. The delegate noted that to determine whether granting the application was in the community interest involved an evaluative exercise that weighed the positives and negatives that would come with the grant of a new licence and facility for the purchase of takeaway liquor in the locality.
7. The delegate considered that granting the application would provide a number of benefits, including providing greater convenience to those who reside in the locality who shop at Together Mart, and to those from outside the locality that shop there, who wish to purchase packaged liquor sourced from Asia. He found that the grant of the application may also have a positive cultural impact in increasing cultural awareness of Asian‑based products in the locality and providing those visiting or residing in Australia from overseas with the opportunity to purchase familiar takeaway liquor products.
8. The delegate found that the addition of liquor as an offering at Together Mart was likely to add to the viability of the store as a going concern, noting that he made a similar observation in the Kimchi decision.
9. The delegate then turned to consider the potential negative implications, noting that this required consideration of the potential harm and risks that may flow in the event the application is granted, the risk management measures to be adopted by the applicant, and any other relevant factors in relation to risk mitigation and harm minimisation.
10. The delegate acknowledged that increasing the number of outlets selling packaged liquor, and therefore the availability of liquor in the locality, always carries some degree of risk, as recognised by this Court in numerous judgments. He added that if this application succeeded, it would be restricted to a relatively low number of product lines of liquor sourced from Asia and would be heavily conditioned in line with the Parafield Plaza grant. He stated that in light of this, and the fact there were no particular 'at risk' groups or social profile concerns in respect of the locality, the risk of alcohol‑related harm arising in the event the licence was to be granted would be quite low.
11. The delegate then went on to note that each case must be decided on its own facts before stating that there were several matters present here that warranted distinguishing the decision of this Court in Parafield Plaza.[12]
12. The delegate noted that: there were more take away liquor facilities in this locality than was the case in Parafield Plaza, by a factor of six compared to two; there was a lower population; there were already two Asian‑style supermarkets selling takeaway Asian liquor in this locality as opposed to none in the other; the store in this case is significantly smaller; and there were far less stringent measures proposed to address harm minimisation.
13. The delegate concluded by saying that the applicant had not established that the grant of the application was in the community interest.
14. The delegate then went on to say that even if it were otherwise, he would still refuse the application. He referred to the decision of this Court in On the Run Pty Ltd (On the Run), wherein this Court noted that this State's decision not to allow the wholesale alignment of supermarkets and takeaway liquor reflected a view that that wholesale alignment may have some negative connotations.[13] He also referred to the observation expressed in Parafield Plaza that "the grant of a packaged liquor sales licence that permits the sale of take away liquor in a supermarket must be seen as a very exceptional thing".[14] He then stated that the fact that the locality under consideration in this case has a much higher proportion of people of Chinese heritage than the State average, was not enough to meet the high bar that must be met to satisfy the requirement that there is a proper reason to grant a packaged liquor sales licence to permit the sale of liquor in a supermarket. He stated that the facts her were different to Parafield Plaza and Kimchi in that here, the relevant community is much better served in terms of the availability of packaged liquor of Asian origin.
15. He then stated that it would not be in the public interest to grant the application.

1. The applicant commenced its submissions by noting that it would be open for this Court to modify and add to the conditions that it proposed would apply to the licence if granted.
2. It submitted that in considering the application for review, it was important for the Court not to lose sight of the fact that this was a very minor application in respect of a small retail facility to sell a limited range of Korean and Chinese liquor in a specialist Asian supermarket.
3. It submitted that the delegate rightly found that the application carried with it minimal risk of harm to the community. It submitted that this finding should have gone a very long way in concluding that the community interest test had been met. It submitted that instead of this, the delegate effectively put this finding to one side, and focused on what he perceived to be critical differences between the facts in this case and those in the successful applications in Parafield Plaza and Kimchi.
4. It submitted that in terms of harm minimisation, the measures and steps to be taken to address that risk, comprised of appropriate staff training, staff being directed to ask for suitable identification from any person who appears to be under the age of 25 years of age, and the fact of liquor being displayed behind the service counter.
5. As for any potential issue raised by the presence of nearby schools, it noted that the closest school is about 800 metres away and that in a metropolitan context, that would hardly be regarded as being particularly close. It submitted that if it were otherwise, it might be hard to find a facility that was not close to a school.
6. It submitted that if properly evaluated, the delegate ought to have found that the community interest test had been met.
7. As to the issue regarding the s 38(3) exemption, it submitted that the delegate misunderstood the guidance that was set out by this Court in On the Run[15] and that this proposal could not give rise to concerns that it might act as a precedent for the "wholesale alignment" of liquor facilities with retail facilities.
8. It further submitted that the delegate misunderstood the guidance that was set out by this Court in Parafield Plaza,[16] as to the general rule that takeaway liquor is to not be sold in supermarkets. It asserted that the delegate applied it as a fetter, thus imposing a burden of proof on the applicant, that there were "very exceptional" circumstances that would need to be met.
9. It concluded by submitting that the delegate should have found that it was in the public interest to exempt the application from the requirement provided by s 38(3) and that there was proper reason to allow the application notwithstanding that the premises comprised of a supermarket.
10. The AHA submitted that the Court should affirm the decision of the delegate and dismiss the appeal, pursuant to s 22(8) of the Act.
11. With consideration to the nature of the hearing, it submitted that as there was no application to supplement the material that was presented before the delegate, this Court should only interfere if it was satisfied that there was an error on part of the delegate.[17]
12. The AHA referred to Hove Sip n Save,[18] where this Court considered the following observations made by Gleeson CJ and Gaudron and Hayne JJ in Coal and Allied v AIRC:[19]

Ordinarily, if there has been no further evidence admitted and if there has been no relevant change in the law a court or tribunal entertaining an appeal by way of rehearing can exercise its appellate powers only if satisfied that there was error on the part of the primary decision‑maker. That is because statutory provisions conferring appellate powers, even in the case of an appeal by way of rehearing, are construed on the basis that, unless there is something to indicate otherwise, the power is to be exercised for the correction of error.

1. It submitted that the applicant had not identified any error that would vitiate the decision of the delegate.
2. The AHA submitted that the delegate was right to conclude that the mere fact that the proposal carried a low risk of potential harm, did not mean that the relevant community interest was satisfied.
3. It submitted that Parliament had made a firm stance regarding the sale of liquor in supermarkets, and that this policy must be afforded primary consideration in applications which sought to be part of the exception.
4. It contended that the delegate was correct in saying that liquor in supermarkets must be seen as very exceptional, adding that unless discretion was exercised on a wrong principle, an appeal court must not interfere. The AHA submitted that this Court must find more than a mere disagreement with the decision.
5. The AHA noted that the Submission accepted that the grant of the application would not result in any increase in employment. It submitted that any potential economic benefit to manufacturers and local suppliers. was irrelevant because there was no evidence that the suppliers are in the locality and, certainly, the manufacturers, far from being in the locality, are not in the country. It submitted that any potential increase in the profitability and viability of Together Mart could only be given little weight, because there was no evidence of customer numbers, turnover, profit, staff numbers, or projected profit. It submitted that the asserted tourism benefits were entirely speculative, noting that unlike Kimchi, which is in O'Connell Street, North Adelaide, which is a tourist street, this application was in respect of premises on Payneham Road.
6. The AHA submitted that the delegate was right to compare the size of Together Mart with the supermarket that was the subject of Parafield Plaza. It submitted that there must be a point at which the relative size of the supermarket must be a factor that counts against the community benefit, because of the small number of customers who could be expected to visit a supermarket of that size.
7. In summary, it contended that the only community benefit, was that people who want to buy Asian liquor will be able to buy it at this grocer which must be viewed in the context of Parliament saying liquor should not be sold in supermarkets.
8. It then submitted that the applicant completed an appalling draft management plan as part of its submissions regarding harm minimisation, noting a number of oversights with regards to minors and the sale of alcohol on premises. It noted that in answer to the question, "Is it likely that the risk level will vary from time to time?" and in response, "Is there anything else you should take into consideration?" the applicant stated: "Proper training and policies will be undertaken in‑house to ensure the Liquor Licensing Act is upheld." It submitted that there was no evidence of what qualifications the applicant holds to undertake in‑house training.
9. The AHA noted that this was the applicant's "second bite at the cherry" and that because its draft management plan was wholly inadequate, this should raise concern, given the applicant's intention to engage in the business of selling liquor.
10. The AHA submitted that the applicant's contention that the delegate focused too much on the differences between the facts in this case and those in the successful applications in Parafield Plaza and Kimchi was unfair. It submitted that he was entitled to reflect upon the differences. It noted that in Parafield Plaza, the locality that was poorly served in terms of the availability of packaged liquor of Asian origin and concerned a much larger supermarket. It noted that in Kimchi, there were no offerings at all in the locality selling packaged liquor of Asian origin.
11. It concluded by submitting that the reasons of the delegate were careful, lengthy and appropriate, and that no error had been demonstrated.

1. With respect, the delegate should have given consideration to the previous unsuccessful application and the reasons why it was refused. He should have identified whether there was any material difference between the business model underpinning it and the current application. He needed to consider whether there had been any change to the locality, whether there was any material change to the characteristics of the locality, or whether there had been any other relevant change of circumstances. If he found that there was a material difference between it and the current application, he needed to consider whether what was involved in the difference was the product of no more than a tactical adjustment made by the applicant to allay any concerns expressed in the earlier refusal. A consideration of all of these matters was necessary, because even if the delegate was otherwise satisfied that the application ought succeed, that consideration may, in an extreme case, have led to the conclusion that it was not in the public interest to grant the application.
2. As this matter is now before this Court, and it is not bound by the earlier decision of the Commissioner to refuse the earlier application, I need say no more about that.
3. In my opinion the delegate was right not to be concerned about the errors contained in the applicant's draft management plan.
4. In determining whether an applicant's policies are sufficiently comprehensive, in case such as this, which concerns an unconventional takeaway liquor facility, it is important to consider the nature of the business being proposed and any conditions that might be imposed upon the licence that might restrict the nature of the business to be conducted. I say this, because there is a world of difference between a conventional packaged liquor sales licence, that if granted unconditionally, could morph into a very large takeaway liquor facility, selling thousands of lines of liquor on an almost industrial scale, and a boutique takeaway liquor facility, that might be permanently limited to selling a very small number of lines within a small retail area.
5. In respect of the former, plainly a detailed and comprehensive plan to ameliorate excessive or inappropriate consumption of liquor is required. And special regard would be required if there were nearby schools or other facilities that might pose a risk in terms of harmful or inappropriate consumption of alcohol. Whereas, in respect of the latter, something less detailed and comprehensive might be regarded as adequate, and the fact that nearby are schools or other facilities of the type just mentioned, might not be of that great a concern.
6. In this case, even if the Court permitted the applicant to sell up to the 60 lines that are proposed, given the limited range of liquor to be sold, and the limited space from which it would be sold, the overall impact upon the available liquor within the community would be negligible, as would the risk to schools and the like.
7. To the extent that comparisons with other cases are useful, this case is a world away from the factual matrix that this Court had to deal with in Hove Sip n Save.[20] In that case the business proposed was a conventional packaged liquor sales licence with no limitation upon the number of lines of liquor that could be sold. About 500 metres to the north of the proposed premises, on the same side of the road, was Brighton Secondary School. Just under a kilometre further to the north, again on the same side of Brighton Road, was Sacred Heart College Senior School. And a few hundred metres to the south, was Marymount College. The applicant's case as to why underage drinking might not be a problem was the assertion that parents are likely to be the main supplier of alcohol to people under 18 years; the fact that there were already five licensed premises within the same locality; the applicant intended to enforce a policy of nil supply to any young person in school uniform; and there were no treatment facilities for young people within two kilometres of the proposed premises. Unsurprisingly, the Court did not find any of these arguments persuasive.
8. Given the limited scope for the grant of this licence (subject to stringent conditions) to cause harm, the applicant's policies are sufficiently comprehensive.
9. The delegate's consideration of how the Commissioner and this Court dealt with previous applications of the type under consideration here, was with respect, entirely appropriate. As Brennan J (as he then was) observed in Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2):

Inconsistency is not merely inelegant: it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.[21]

1. It was with this in mind that this Court observed in BWS Woodcroft, that: "Like cases should result in like outcomes".[22]
2. But an adjudicating authority, also needs to be mindful that each case must be decided on its own facts, that when considering a case the factual picture must be considered as a whole,[23] and that ultimately the fate of the application begins and ends with a consideration of the statutory tests.
3. I now turn to consider whether the applicant had established that the grant of the liquor licence that it seeks was in the community interest.
4. Based on the data base that the applicant had established, with respect, I agree with the delegate that the suburbs of Payneham, Marden, Glynde, Firle, Felixstow, Royston Park, Payneham South and Joslin comprised of the relevant locality.
5. The Submission establishes that the socio economic profile of the locality is one of advantage and that there are no issues of concern regarding social disadvantage, or vulnerable or 'at risk' groups or sub communities.
6. Given the very limited impact that the proposal would have on the consumption of alcohol within the locality, issues regarding the identification of community buildings, facilities and areas of interest or concern within the locality where persons vulnerable to alcohol related harm might congregate or be attracted to, do not arise.
7. The same is true of any risk that might be associated with the potential for harm such as minors having access to alcohol, violent, disorderly or other anti‑social behaviour, driving under the influence of alcohol, theft of liquor or any potential increase in crime and anti‑social behaviour associated with sale of liquor at the premises.
8. I accept the submission made by the AHA regarding the absence of evidence to support a finding of the economic benefits or employment opportunities that the grant of the application will generate in the locality and the broader community.
9. Whilst I also accept that any suggested tourism benefits are speculative, it is significant that this locality has a relatively high number of persons of Asian heritage who might be expected to have some of their cultural aspirations met by the produce on offer at Together Mart. It is reasonable to infer that many of the patrons of the supermarket would welcome the opportunity to purchase Asian liquor from within the small range that is proposed as part of their use of this facility. I find that the grant of the application would result in greater convenience for customers who shop at Together Mart.
10. The delegate was concerned that there are more takeaway liquor facilities in this locality than the number in the locality in the Parafield Plaza case. He was also concerned that the population of this locality is several thousand less that the population in the locality in Parafield Plaza. Whilst I do not share the delegate's concern about the difference in population, I respectfully agree that the number of takeaway liquor facilities in this locality, that includes two Asian-style supermarkets is a relevant consideration. As was observed in BWS Mount Barker: "... it is in the community interest for there to be some brake on the number of premises at which the public may purchase liquor for consumption off the premises".[24]
11. Lucky Mart, Glynde, is on the opposite side of Payneham Road near the Glynde corner at the eastern edge of the locality.
12. Family Mart SA, Firle, is on Glynburn Road, at the south‑eastern edge of the locality.
13. In both cases, for those in the locality living to the east and south of Together Mart, travelling to them so as to be able to combine their use of an Asian-style supermarket with the purchase of Asian-style liquor, would involve little inconvenience. Whilst for those living to the west and north of Together Mart the inconvenience would be greater, travelling by car on relatively easy roads for an extra 10 minutes or so could hardly be described as a major imposition.
14. In addition to these is the Dan Murphy's at Marden. I note that the Submission stated that Dan Murphy's, Marden has a limited range of Korean Soju - Good Day, Jinro, Chatuel Soorok and Soonhari liquor available.
15. It is reasonable to draw the inference that some of Together Mart's customers who wish to purchase some liquor of the type proposed, might presently contentedly do so at one of these stores or at other such stores elsewhere in metropolitan Adelaide.
16. In summary, the proposal carries a low risk of potential harm and if successful will result in greater convenience for customers who shop at Together Mart. But many of these customers come from outside of the locality and might be expected to pass other takeaway liquor facilities that can provide, in terms of products, something similar to what is proposed. And, for those who reside in the locality, there are already two licensed Asian‑style supermarkets within relatively easy access that already sell similar liquor products as well as a Dan Murphy's that sells at least some of similar type of products. In my opinion, this tips that balance against the application.
17. Thus, albeit by a slightly different route, I come to the same conclusion as the delegate, that the grant of the application is not in the community interest.
18. As to the issue of the s 38(7) exemption, as was explained by this Court in Parafield Plaza, in determining whether it is in the public interest to grant the s 38 exemption, in the context of an application founded on a limited unique offering of liquor, it is relevant to consider the availability of such liquor products in the locality.[25]
19. If there was already ample convenient opportunity for the relevant community to purchase such products, this would strongly point against it being in the public interest to grant the exemption.
20. In my opinion, collectively the Dan Murphy's in Marden, the Lucky Mart in Glynde, and the Family Mart in Firle provide ample convenient opportunity for the relevant community to purchase products of the type envisaged by the application.
21. I find that the exemptions allowed by ss 38(6) and (7) of the Act do not apply.
22. Independently of this, I would exercise the discretion conferred by s 53 of the Act to refuse the application on public interest grounds.
23. This case could only succeed by concluding that it is sufficient for an application for a packaged liquor sales licence for a cultural specialist store to succeed because it carries little risk of harm and will add to the convenience of its existing customers who presently might have to visit a large format store or travel an extra 10 minutes or so by car to meet their desire to purchase Asian-style liquor. If this is sufficient, bearing in mind that "[l]ike cases should result in like outcomes",[26] it is difficult to imagine that any application by a cultural specialist store for a packaged liquor sales licence in an area that is not socially disadvantaged could fail, even if there were similar cultural specialist stores that are licensed to sell liquor nearby. This would create an undesirable precedent that would run counter to the evident intention of Parliament that as a general proposition, premises ordinarily known as or advertised as a supermarket, convenience store or delicatessen should not sell takeaway liquor.

[1] An application for a packaged liquor sales licence is deemed to be a "designated application" by s 4 of the Act.

[2] [2008] SALC 16 at [8]- [13].

[3] [2001] SASC 439; (2001) 81 SASR 222 at 227-8.

[6] [2023] SALC 73 at [124].

[9] Unreported decision of delegate Paul Bertram, 18 February 2024.

[10] [2021] SALC 7.

[13] [2022] SALC 109 at [36].

[17] Jackpots on Hindley [2009] SALC 35; Liquorland Mount Barker (No. 2) [2023] SALC 3, at [32].

[19] Ibid at [77]-[78]; Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; 203 CLR 194; 74 ALJR 1348; 174 ALR 585; 99 IR 309.

[21] [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 639.

[22] [2022] SALC 108 at [107].

[23] Nancollas v Insurance Officer [1985] 1 All ER 833 at 840.

[24] [2023] SALC 31 at [78].