Liquor Commission Rules 2007

The Rules define several key terms that shape their operation. “Proceedings” is the umbrella term covering seven specific types of matters (r 3). This includes reviews of Director decisions under s 25 of the Act, appeals from single-member Commission decisions under s 28(4a), complaints under s 95, and several statutory applications added by later amendments. The definition is exhaustive - only these categories attract the Rules. “Party” means a party to proceedings, but the Rules do not define who qualifies as a party; that is determined by the underlying Act. “Lodge” means to file at the office of the Commission. “Document” and “record” are defined broadly to encompass paper, electronic and any other information storage medium.

The Rules introduce the concept of an “interested person” in r 5(1A), which borrows its meaning from s 25(1A) of the Act. This is critical for review applications: only an interested person can seek review of a “reviewable decision” by the Director. Similarly, the Rules refer to “authority” in the context of written submissions - any legislation, judgment, legal text or related material relied upon must be identified, and judgments must be provided in full.

A key procedural concept is the default application of the Rules. Rule 4 states that the Rules apply in all proceedings unless the Commission orders otherwise in a particular case. This gives the Commission a residual discretion to modify procedure, but the burden is on the party seeking departure to apply for such an order. The practical effect is that parties must assume strict compliance unless they actively seek relief.

The Rules also establish the concept of simultaneous determination and joint hearings. Under rr 8 and 9, the Commission may order separate proceedings to be determined simultaneously or heard together, whether on application by a party or on its own initiative. This allows the Commission to consolidate related matters to avoid inconsistent outcomes and reduce administrative burden. However, it also means that a party who would prefer its matter heard alone could be compelled into a joint hearing, potentially affecting strategy, evidence and costs.

Withdrawal from proceedings is another important concept. A party wishing to withdraw must lodge a written notice and serve it on every other party. The Commission may grant leave for withdrawal in the absence of parties (r 10(2)). This creates a formal exit process rather than an informal abandonment.

Costs are a central concept. The Commission can order costs, and when it does, it must list the proceedings for assessment of those costs and notify parties in writing (r 12). The party entitled to costs must then lodge and serve a written bill. The assessment process is not further described in the Rules; it presumably follows the Commission’s practice. The fee schedule in Schedule 1 sets the charges for lodging applications and obtaining copies.

Finally, authentication of decisions (r 13) requires a Commission member’s signature and the affixing of the Commission’s seal. This ensures the formal validity of decisions for enforcement and appeal purposes.

The Rules affect anyone who becomes a party to proceedings before the Western Australian Liquor Commission. This includes licensed venues, applicants for new licences, objectors to licence applications, complainants under s 95 of the Act, and the Director of Liquor Licensing when its decisions are under review. The Rules also affect legal practitioners representing these parties, as they must comply with the lodgment, service and submission requirements.

Small business operators are particularly affected. A licensee challenging a Director’s decision must pay $468 to lodge a review application, plus potential costs if they lose. The page limits on submissions may force them to summarise complex arguments concisely, which can be difficult without professional legal assistance. The requirement to serve copies on all other parties “as soon as practicable” (r 5(1)(b)) imposes an administrative burden that may be unfamiliar to a small business owner. Unrepresented parties face the risk of procedural non-compliance that could derail their case.

The Director of Liquor Licensing is a regular participant, often as the respondent in review applications. The Director must be served with copies of applications and submissions, and may appear and be heard in proceedings. The Rules ensure the Director has an opportunity to respond, but they also impose no special obligations on the Director beyond those common to all parties.

Complainants under s 95 of the Act can lodge a complaint by any of the four specified methods (hand delivery, post, fax or email) without paying the $468 fee - the complaint procedure does not require a fee under Schedule 1. This makes the complaint process more accessible to members of the public. However, the Rules impose no further procedural requirements on complaints beyond the method of lodgment, so a complainant may have fewer procedural burdens than an applicant for review.

The Rules also affect the Commission itself. They structure its workflow, define the formalities for decisions, and provide tools for case management such as ordering joint hearings or varying rules in particular cases. The Commission must ensure its decisions are authenticated by signature and seal, and it must list proceedings for costs assessment when ordered. The Rules constrain the Commission’s procedural discretion by establishing default rules that it can only depart from by express order.

The broader public is not directly affected unless they become involved in proceedings. However, the liquor licensing regime affects competition in the hospitality sector, and procedural barriers can indirectly influence market outcomes. For example, if the cost and complexity of challenging a Director’s decision discourages objections, that may reduce the number of licence applications denied and affect the competitive landscape. The Rules, while ostensibly neutral, can have economic effects through their impact on the volume and nature of proceedings.

The Rules impose several specific duties on parties. An applicant for review of a Director’s decision under s 25 of the Act must lodge a written application within the time period referred to in s 25(2) of the Act, which is not specified in the Rules themselves but must be found in the primary legislation. The application must clearly state the applicant’s name, address and telephone number, the decision sought to be reviewed, the grounds of application, and the date of the decision. The applicant must then serve a copy on the Director and every other interested person as soon as practicable after lodging.

An appellant against a single-member Commission decision under s 28(4a) must lodge a written appeal within one month after the decision. The appeal must state the appellant’s contact details, the decision appealed against, the grounds, the name of the member who gave the decision, and the date. Service on other parties is required as soon as practicable after lodgment.

A party lodging written submissions must ensure they are a summary expressed clearly and succinctly, set out in numbered paragraphs, and limited to 20 pages for primary submissions and 10 pages for any further submissions allowed by the Commission. The party must also provide complete copies of any judgment cited as an authority, and sufficient details for any other authority to be identified and located. Submissions must be served on every other party as soon as practicable after lodgment.

A party wishing to withdraw from proceedings must lodge a written notice and serve it on every other party.

The Rules also confer certain rights on parties. A party to proceedings has the right to obtain copies of any document the party is entitled to inspect under s 16(11)(b) of the Act, and a transcript of the proceedings, upon payment of $5 per page (Schedule 1, item 3). A party may apply for an order relating to practice or procedure by lodging a written application, or with leave may make such an application orally at a hearing. A party may also apply for separate proceedings to be determined simultaneously or heard together, or the Commission may act on its own initiative.

When the Commission orders costs, the party entitled to costs has the right to have the costs assessed. That party must lodge and serve a written bill of costs. The other party has the right to challenge that bill during the assessment process, though the Rules do not detail that process.

The Commission has a duty to authenticate decisions by signature and seal, and to list proceedings for costs assessment and notify parties when it makes a costs order.

The Rules themselves do not create any criminal offences or civil penalties. Non-compliance with the Rules does not attract a direct statutory fine or sanction. Instead, enforcement occurs indirectly through the Commission’s inherent procedural powers and the use of costs orders.

If a party fails to lodge an application within the prescribed time, the application may not be accepted or may be dismissed. The Commission has discretion to extend time limits? The Rules do not expressly grant power to extend the one-month appeal period, unlike some tribunal rules. This creates a strict deadline that, if missed, likely bars the appeal. The Commission could potentially vary the Rules under r 4, but that provision allows departure from the Rules in a particular case; whether it can extend a statutory time limit is questionable. Late lodgment is therefore a high-risk scenario.

Failure to serve documents on other parties may lead to procedural objections and potential adjournments. A party who is not served may argue they were denied procedural fairness, and the Commission may order service or strike out the application if service is not effected. The phrase “as soon as practicable” is imprecise and leaves room for dispute; a party who delays service risks the Commission staying the proceedings or refusing to hear the matter until service is completed.

Non-compliance with the submission page limits or formatting requirements may result in the Commission rejecting the submissions or ordering them to be re-drafted. The requirement for numbered paragraphs and a succinct summary is mandatory; the Commission could refuse to consider submissions that do not comply.

Costs orders under r 12 are the primary enforcement mechanism. The Commission can order a party to pay the costs of another party. This is particularly potent because there is no cap on the amount of costs that can be ordered. A party who unreasonably prolongs proceedings, fails to comply with procedural directions, or makes frivolous applications could face a substantial costs bill. The assessment process then gives the Commission an opportunity to quantify the amount. The threat of costs can deter strategic behaviour and encourage compliance.

The withdrawal process (r 10) ensures that a party cannot simply abandon proceedings without formality. If a party stops participating without lodging a notice of withdrawal, they may remain exposed to costs orders or default decisions against them.

The Commission also has the power under r 4 to order that the Rules do not apply in a particular case. This allows it to tailor procedures, but also means it could impose stricter requirements on a party if it chooses. Enforcement is thus largely discretionary and fact-specific.

These Rules are subordinate legislation made under the Liquor Control Act 1988. They derive their legal force from that Act. They interact with the Act at multiple points: the Rules explicitly reference ss 24, 25, 28(4a), 95, 115AD(3), 152NH(2), 152YY(1) and 16(11)(b) of the Act. The time limits for review applications are not set out in the Rules but refer back to s 25(2) of the Act. Parties must consult the Act to determine those limits. The definition of “interested person” and “reviewable decision” in r 5(1A) also draws directly from s 25(1A) of the Act.

The Rules repeal and replace the earlier Liquor Licensing Court Rules 2005. They include a savings provision (r 16(2)): proceedings subsisting immediately before the commencement of these Rules may be continued as if the repealed rules had not been repealed. This ensures continuity and prevents procedural disruption during the transition.

The Rules interact with the Commission’s own practices and any practice directions the Commission may issue. The Rules do not preclude the Commission from issuing additional guidance, but any such guidance must be consistent with the Rules unless the Commission exercises its power to vary the Rules in a particular case.

The Rules do not directly interact with the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 or the Supreme Court Act 1935, but appeals from the Commission’s decisions may go to the State Administrative Tribunal or the Supreme Court, depending on the nature of the decision. The procedural requirements in these Rules affect the record and the timeliness of any appeal to those bodies. For example, if a party fails to comply with the Rules and the Commission dismisses their application, that final decision may then be appealed externally. The Rules thus feed into the broader administrative law framework.

The Rules also interact with the Limitation Act 2005 only indirectly. The one-month appeal period in r 6 is a statutory limitation period under the Act, not under the Limitation Act. The Rules do not extend any limitation periods.

The note in the compilation table about the Liquor Commission Amendment Rules (No. 2) 2023 Part 3 not coming into operation is significant. It shows that an intended amendment to the Rules was rendered inoperative because the underlying Act section (inserted by the Liquor Control Amendment (Banned Drinkers Register) Act 2023 s 31) was later deleted by the Liquor Control Amendment Act 2025 s 128 before it could take effect. This illustrates the dependency of these Rules on the primary Act - when the Act changes, the Rules may need amendment or become obsolete. Any practitioner relying on the Rules must check the current state of the Act to ensure the provisions referenced still exist.

Finally, the Rules are subject to judicial review on administrative law grounds. A party could challenge the validity of the Rules themselves if they are ultra vires the Act, though no such challenge appears in the materials provided. The Rules are also subject to the usual principles of procedural fairness, which may supplement their provisions.

The Rules were originally gazetted on 5 October 2007 and commenced on 6 October 2007 for most provisions. They have been amended twelve times since then, predominantly to adjust the fees in Schedule 1. The pattern of fee increases is notable: 2009, 2011, 2014, 2019 (effective 1 Jan 2020), 2022 (effective 1 Jan 2023), 2023 (effective 1 Jan 2024), 2024 (effective 1 Jan 2025), and 2025 (effective 1 Jan 2026). The fee for lodging a review or appeal has risen from an initial amount not stated in the source to $468 by 2025-2026. The copy cost per page has also increased to $5. These regular amendments reflect indexation or policy decisions to recover more of the Commission’s costs from users.

The 2014 amendment (Liquor Commission Amendment Rules 2014) inserted a significant new rule: rule 8A on lodging written submissions. This introduced the page limits (20 pages primary, 10 pages further) and the requirement to provide complete judgments. This was a procedural tightening that increased the burden on parties and likely aimed to streamline hearings by discouraging lengthy written arguments.

The 2020 amendment (Liquor Commission Amendment Rules 2020) inserted rule 14, which gives parties the right to obtain copies of documents they are entitled to inspect under s 16(11)(b) of the Act and transcripts of proceedings, subject to the $5 per page fee. Before that, the Rules did not expressly address this right.

The 2022 No. 2 amendment (Liquor Commission Amendment Rules (No. 2) 2022) amended rules 3 and 5 to add references to new sections of the Act: ss 115AD(3), 152NH(2) and 152YY(1). This expanded the definition of “proceedings” to include new application types, reflecting legislative changes to the liquor control regime. It also updated the definition of “reviewable decision” and “interested person”.

The 2023 No. 2 amendment (Liquor Commission Amendment Rules (No. 2) 2023) further amended rule 3 to add definitions for new application types. However, Part 3 of that amending instrument did not come into operation because the underlying Act section it was meant to support was deleted before commencement. This is a cautionary tale about legislative complexity and the importance of checking the current Act.

The compilation table shows that the Rules were reprinted as at 10 March 2017. The 2025 amendment is the most recent, effective 1 January 2026. The Rules are a living instrument that evolves with the liquor control legislative landscape.

The source material does not mention any specific court cases interpreting the Liquor Commission Rules 2007. This is not surprising: as procedural rules, they are rarely litigated in isolation. Most disputes about Commission procedure would arise in the context of an application for judicial review of a Commission decision, where a party might argue that the Commission failed to follow its own Rules or acted contrary to procedural fairness. The Rules themselves are not normally the subject of a separate legal challenge.

If such a challenge were to occur, it would likely be on grounds that the Rules are ultra vires the Liquor Control Act 1988 or that they breach the common law duty of procedural fairness. A court might also consider whether the Commission properly exercised its discretion under r 4 to depart from the Rules in a particular case. The Rules do not create a right of appeal from the Commission’s procedural decisions; such appeals would need to be brought under the Act or general administrative law.

Practitioners should be aware that mere non-compliance with the Rules does not automatically invalidate a Commission decision. The Commission has discretion to cure procedural defects. The case law would likely follow the approach of other tribunals, balancing the importance of the rule breached against the prejudice to the parties and the overall interests of justice.

Given the lack of cited litigation, the safest assumption is that the Rules are followed in practice and that significant procedural disputes are resolved internally by the Commission. Parties should not expect to find a body of case law to support arguments about the Rules; they must rely on the text and the Commission’s practice.

Several provisions in the Rules can trap unwary parties. The one-month time limit for appeals under r 6(1)(a) is short and runs from the date of the decision, not from when the party receives the decision. If a party is not present when the Commission delivers its decision orally, the clock may start before they have a copy of the written reasons. Any delay in obtaining the reasons could eat into the appeal period. The Rules do not provide for extension of this time limit. A party cannot rely on the possibility of an extension; they must act within one month or risk losing the right to appeal.

The fee of $468 must be paid at the time of lodgment. The Rules do not provide for fee waivers or deferrals. A licensee with cashflow problems may be effectively barred from review or appeal. The fee is the same for both review and appeal; there is no discount for unrepresented parties or small businesses.

The requirement under r 5(1)(b) to serve a copy of the application on every other interested person “as soon as practicable” is vague. What is practicable depends on the circumstances. If an applicant serves only the Director but omits another interested person, that person may later object that they were not given a fair opportunity to respond. The Commission could adjourn the hearing or strike out the application. The better practice is to serve all known interested persons immediately by the same method as the original lodgment.

The definition of “proceedings” in r 3 includes matters referred by the Director under s 24 of the Act. That referral process is not described in the Rules; it arises from the Act. A party who is the subject of such a referral may not be aware that the Rules apply to them, and may fail to respond within any timeframes set by the Commission.

Rule 8A on submissions includes a page limit of 20 pages for primary submissions. That count likely includes attachments or schedules? The rule does not specify. It says “the submissions” must not exceed 20 pages. Attaching lengthy documents could argue that those are not part of the submissions. However, a conservative approach would be to keep the submission itself within 20 pages and attach supporting materials separately. The requirement to provide complete judgments (r 8A(2)(a)) could be onerous: if a party relies on multiple cases, they must provide full copies, increasing bulk and cost.

The costs order process in r 12 is sparse. The Commission lists proceedings for assessment and notifies parties. The party entitled to costs must lodge and serve a written bill. There is no express deadline for that lodgment, no provision for challenging the bill, and no guidance on how the assessment is conducted. This creates uncertainty. A party awarded costs could be left waiting indefinitely while the logistics are sorted out.

The authentication requirement in r 13 (signature and seal) means that until both are applied, there may be no formal decision that can be appealed or enforced. A party should confirm that the decision they receive carries the seal; if not, it may be unenforceable.

Finally, the savings provision in r 16(2) means that if you were a party to proceedings under the old Liquor Licensing Court Rules 2005, those rules continue to apply. Do not assume these Rules apply to your matter if it was commenced before 6 October 2007.

Complying with the Liquor Commission Rules 2007 requires careful attention to timing, content and service. The following step-by-step approach is recommended.

First, identify which type of proceeding applies from the seven categories in r 3. If you are an “interested person” as defined in s 25(1A) of the Act and wish to challenge a “reviewable decision” by the Director, you need to lodge an application for review under r 5. If you are a party to a decision made by a single Commission member and you wish to appeal, you must follow r 6. If you wish to make a complaint under s 95 of the Act, r 7 applies. For other statutory applications (s 115AD(3), s 152NH(2), s 152YY(1)), refer to the specific Act provisions.

Second, check the time limits. For an appeal under r 6, you have exactly one month from the date of the decision. For a review under r 5, the time limit is set out in s 25(2) of the Act; you must find it there. Do not assume the Rules contain that limit - they do not. Mark the deadline clearly and aim to lodge several days early to allow for unforeseen delays.

Third, prepare your application or appeal in writing. Include your name, address, telephone number, the decision you are challenging, the grounds of your application or appeal, and the date of the decision. For an appeal, also include the name of the member who made the decision. The document must clearly state these things - brevity is acceptable provided it is clear. Do not use vague grounds like “the decision was unfair”; state specific legal or factual errors.

Fourth, pay the fee. As at 2025-2026, the fee for a review or appeal is $468. The fee must be paid at the time of lodgment. No other methods of payment are described; contact the Commission office to confirm acceptable payment forms (cheque, credit card, etc.). The Rules do not provide for invoices or deferred payment.

Fifth, lodge the application or appeal. You may do so by hand delivery, pre-paid post, facsimile transmission, or email (r 5(1)(a), r 6(1)(a), r 7). Ensure you obtain proof of lodgment - a receipt if hand delivering, a postal receipt, a fax confirmation, or an email confirmation. Keep that proof as evidence of lodgment within the time limit.

Sixth, serve a copy of the application or appeal on every other party. For a review, that includes the Director and every other interested person. For an appeal, serve every other person who was a party to the original proceedings. Service must be done “as soon as practicable” after lodgment. The Rules do not specify the method of service; use the same methods as for lodgment. Keep proof of service for each person served.

Seventh, if you intend to lodge written submissions, prepare them as a summary of your arguments, expressed clearly and succinctly, in numbered paragraphs. The primary submission must not exceed 20 pages. If the Commission allows further submissions, those must not exceed 10 pages. Provide a copy of every complete judgment you rely on, and for any other authority, provide sufficient details to identify and locate it. Lodge the submissions and serve them on every other party as soon as practicable.

Eighth, if you wish to withdraw from proceedings, lodge a written notice of withdrawal and serve it on every other party (r 10). If you are the applicant and you withdraw without notice, you may remain liable for costs.

Ninth, if the Commission orders you to pay costs, expect the Commission to list the proceedings for assessment and notify you. The party entitled to costs must then lodge and serve a written bill. If you are the party entitled to costs, prepare your bill promptly. If you are the party liable, you may object to the bill during the assessment.

Tenth, if you need copies of documents or transcripts, contact the Commission to order them. Pay the $5 per page fee. The relevant rule (r 14) only applies to documents you are entitled to inspect under s 16(11)(b) of the Act, and transcripts of the proceedings. It is not a general right to all Commission documents.

Throughout, consider seeking the Commission’s leave under r 4 to vary the Rules if the standard requirements are impractical for your case. For example, if your case involves complex facts that cannot be condensed into 20 pages, apply in writing for an order allowing longer submissions. The Commission has discretion to modify the Rules on a case-by-case basis. Do not assume indulgence will be granted; apply early and explain why variation is necessary.

Finally, retain all documents, service proofs and correspondence. The Commission may require you to prove compliance with the Rules at any stage. A well-documented file will protect you against procedural objections and reduce the risk of adverse costs orders.