Five Stags, Pirongia
The operator of Pirongia’s Five Stags Restaurant and Bar breached licensing laws for years, the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority has heard.
Five Stags
Five Stags operator Night Pearl Ltd, whose sole shareholder is Nora Fu, was told in September last year that the front and left side outside area of the building could not be used to consume alcohol until a licence variation was granted for those areas.
But during a police-controlled purchase operation in December alcohol was sold by a 16-year-old staff member to a 17-year-old who was not asked for age identification. The underage drinker was allowed to sit outside the licenced area to consume the alcohol.
“There appears to be an ongoing disregard for the assistance given or an inability to understand the obligations of a licensee,” the Waipā District Licensing Committee found in February. It was not confident that the licensee understood the obligations of a licensee and declined renewal of a licence.
Fu, who had operated with an uncertificated manager on duty, and had failed to maintain the manager’s register, appealed to the authority last Thursday.
Fu’s counsel Sarah Rawcliffe said her client had represented herself before the licencing committee hearing and felt it was incorrect in finding the licence should not be renewed.
Rawcliffe said there was “a significant amount of confusion” throughout the prior process.
Hearing chair Judge Simon Menzies said the appellant’s submission implied criticism of the licensing committee. But Rawcliffe accepted the confusion was the appellant’s issue.
Judge Menzies said the appellant had received a plan showing a clearly defined licensing area that covered to the roofline of the building.
“It was not clear that it could not serve alcohol out the front of the premises,” Rawcliffe said. “This is on the basis that it had been done for many years.”
Judge Menzies asked Rawcliffe: “Is it clear to you?” Rawcliffe said it was.
Pirongia’s Five Stags
Robert Davies, counsel for liquor licensing inspector Mary Fernandez, said the key issue was the applicant’s suitability to hold a liquor licence.
“You need to be able to trust your licensee to understand their obligation and meet them substantiality, not superficially,” he said.
Davies reminded the authority that the Employment Relations Authority had ordered the appellant to pay more than $21,000 in compensation in 2023 following the unjustified dismissal of an employee.
He also spoke of an overriding impression of a patronage in a considerable state of disorder.
“Is it any wonder the controlled purchase operation failed?’
The Five Stags has been forbidden from selling alcohol since May 19, but continues to promote “Cold beer, great food, tall tales….” on its website.
The authority reserved its decision, promising a decision in writing.
“I am not going to put a time frame on that,” Judge Menzies said.
