The operator of Pirongia’s Five Stags Restaurant and Bar has lost its appeal against Waipā District Licencing Committee’s decision not to renew its on-licence.
Night Pearl Ltd, whose sole shareholder is Nora Fu, did not have its on-licence renewed in May following a committee hearing that started in September 2023 and concluded in February.
Pirongia’s Five Stags
The Five Stags continued to serve alcohol on parts of the premises not covered by the licence between hearing dates, serve alcohol to an underage drinker during a police-led controlled purchase operation in November 2023, and failed to properly appoint and notify a duty manager.
All of this occurred after the Employment Relations Authority ordered the company to pay more than $21,000 following the unjustified dismissal of an employee.
“Our primary concern is the suitability of Night Pearl, under the control and management of Ms Fu,” the committee said in its decision. “We are not confident that Ms Fu understands the obligations of a licensee . . . or the conditions of the licence, or that she can be trusted to comply in the future. Ms Fu’s confusion and lack of clarity about how to operate the premises in a compliant manner was evident.”
Fu took her appeal to the Alcohol and Regulatory and Licensing Authority in Hamilton District Court on June 27, her counsel Sarah Rawcliffe saying Fu felt it was incorrect in finding the licence should not be renewed as there was “a significant amount of confusion” throughout the prior process.
Dismissing Fu’s appeal in a 23-page decision, Alcohol and Regulatory and Licensing Authority deputy chair Simon Menzies said the picture that had emerged through the hearing was a licensee who, through its principal operator Fu, has shown a concerning attitude towards compliance with the obligations under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act and as well, obligations under employment law.
“Even by the time of the appeal hearing, it became apparent that the appellant downplayed the gravity of the situation and was either unable or unwilling to understand and comply with the obligations attaching to a licence,” Judge Menzies said.
“Similarly, it was the appellant’s responsibility to be aware of and comply with the Act’s requirements relating to the appointment of managers.”
Judge Menzies said the lack of training appears to have contributed to the failed controlled purchase order.
He also commented on an exchange between Fu and the committee chair. Told by the chair checking ID was a basic function of anyone serving alcohol, Fu said: “Yes, it is not complicated. But sometimes I forget it.”
“The exchange with the DLC and Ms Fu relating to the service of minors reflected a lack of understanding of the obligations arising in relation to a critical area of the Act – sales to under aged persons,” Judge Menzies said.
The appeal argued that undue weight was given by the committee to these issues and other positive features such as the lack of opposition was given insufficient weight.
“We disagree,” said Judge Menzies. “The lack of compliance by the appellant on a sustained basis was surprising and concerning.”
Some of the issues arose when the renewal application was before the committee, he said.
“Most parties in that position would be putting their best foot forward while the application and the business generally were under scrutiny.
Fu told The News on Monday she was on holiday and was not aware of the decision.
