Brosnan v R [1912] HCA 49; (1912) 15 CLR 466 (1 August 1912)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brosnan Appellant; and The King Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

1 August 1912

Barton and Isaacs JJ.

Thomson, for the appellant.

J. Barton delivered the judgment of the Court.

Barton J

Before the licensing magistrates could have jurisdiction to decide the matter that came before them, it was necessary for them to decide that the premises in respect of which a renewal was applied for were the same premises as those originally licensed. We need not decide that any addition to the premises would deprive them of that character, but it seems to be at least necessary that the premises in respect of which a renewal is applied for should be substantially identical with those in respect of which the original licence was granted. In this case a plan and a description of the premises are before us upon affidavit, from which it appears that the premises sought to be added to those covered by the existing licence are larger than the original premises. A finding by the magistrates that the premises were substantially identical must have been involved in their determination to grant a renewal. To come to such a conclusion upon the evidence before us seems to be beyond all reason, and so the majority of the Supreme Court thought. The question whether the premises are the same premises which were originally licensed lies at the root of the matter. We do not think that in the exercise of the discretion committed to us we ought to grant special leave to appeal in this case, although there are certain questions of law which are interesting and important. These, however, may be raised in some other case.

Special leave to appeal refused.

Solicitors, Morris, Fletcher & Jensen, Brisbane.