Enforcement actions

Inspectors may use their discretion when reviewing the non-compliance and decide to take no further action.

Risk management discussions are used to help licensees identify areas of their operation that pose a risk to patrons and/or staff. These discussions are about managing potential risks and are not designed to deal with breaches of the Act or licence conditions. Discussions can be used in conjunction with other enforcement options such as infringement or warning notices.

A warning notice is a written letter sent to a licensee identifying a breach that was detected during an inspection. An inspector may decide to issue a warning notice where the breach is a first offence or the licensee intends to rectify the issue, but a formal record of the breach is appropriate. Warning notices give the licensee an opportunity to resolve the breach before enforcement action is escalated.

A penalty infringement notice (PIN) is a fine for an offence. An infringement notice may be used where a licensee has a history of non-compliance (including warnings), the issue is considered deliberate, or the offence is of a serious nature. An inspector can issue an infringement notice for any breach of licence conditions or legislated obligations. An infringement will be issued by post and must be paid within 28 days.

A criminal prosecution may be pursued when an investigation discovers serious or deliberate breaches of licence conditions or legislated obligations.

Offences such as the unlicensed sale of liquor or dishonesty offences must go to court. Inspectors may also issue criminal charges when there is a significant volume of breaches the breaches are sufficiently serious that criminal charges are the only proportionate response or if previous enforcement has not resulted in compliance. Criminal proceedings for liquor offences are heard by the Magistrates Court and can result in penalties higher than an infringement notice.

An undertaking is a legal agreement between the Commission and a licensee as an alternative to other enforcement actions. An undertaking is considered when the licensee is proactive about addressing an issue identified by an inspector. In the undertaking, the licensee agrees to do something above their licence conditions to address a risk and the Commission agrees not to take action for the identified issue. Failure to comply with an undertaking can result in a hearing before the Commission and penalties above the original offence.

View a list of current undertakings.

The Commission can take disciplinary action against a licensee for any breach of the Act or licence conditions. The Commission conducts an inquiry into whether there are grounds to take disciplinary action against a licensee or permittee, and a licensee has a right of response at a hearing.

Disciplinary action can result in a range of actions against the licensee including:

• fines
• the suspension or cancellation of a licence
• disqualification from applying for or holding a liquor licence.

View a list of disqualified persons or companies.

Wednesday 4 June 2025 - Dale Gaskell-Kharsas

Dale Gaskell-Kharsas was the sole director of Small Boots Pty Ltd which sold Small Boots branded wine through their website, at events and through sales direct to other businesses such as bottle shops, bars and restaurants. Neither Dale Gaskell-Kharsas nor Small Boots Pty Ltd held a relevant liquor licence for this trading.

The unlicensed trading came to the attention of Liquor Control Victoria following information received and on 10 August 2024 liquor inspectors attended an event where the accused was trading wine from a Small Boots branded stand. Documents obtained pursuant to section 130(1)(a) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 revealed details of the relevant website sales, sales at another event and sales to other businesses.

Mr Gaskell-Kharsas pleaded guilty to one charge of offering liquor for sale whilst not a licensee and to a second charge for selling liquor whilst not a licensee, both being contrary to s107(1) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven, and without conviction, imposed a fine on the accused of $6,000 as part of an aggregate order and ordered the accused to pay part of the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Wednesday 4 June 2025 – Small Boots Pty Ltd

Small Boots Pty Ltd sold Small Boots branded wine through their website, at events and through sales direct to other businesses such as bottle shops, bars and restaurants. Dale Gaskell-Kharsas was the sole director of Small Boots Pty Ltd. Neither Small Boots Pty Ltd nor Dale Gaskell-Kharsas held a relevant liquor licence for this trading.

The unlicensed trading came to the attention of Liquor Control Victoria following information received and on 10 August 2024 liquor inspectors attended an event where Mr Gaskell-Kharsas was trading wine from a Small Boots branded stand. Documents obtained pursuant to section 130(1)(a) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 revealed details of the relevant website sales, sales at another event and sales to other businesses.

The accused company pleaded guilty to one charge of offering liquor for sale whilst not a licensee and to a second charge for selling liquor whilst not a licensee, both being contrary to s107(1) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven, and without conviction, imposed a fine on the accused company of $6,000 as part of an aggregate order and ordered Small Boots Pty Ltd to pay part of the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Monday 10 February 2025 – Ryan’s Family Hotel Pty Ltd

Ryan’s Family Hotel Pty Ltd held a general late night licence for a premises in Traralgon.

On 25 September 2022, liquor inspectors attended the premises to conduct a routine unannounced inspection and found that liquor was being supplied not in accordance with the licence, in that the premises was over the maximum patron capacity permitted by the licence.

On 10 February 2025, the accused company pleaded guilty to supplying liquor not in accordance with the licence contrary to s108(1) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charge proven, convicted the accused company, and imposed a fine of $1,500 as well as the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Thursday 12 December 2024 – Emerson Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd

Emerson Holding (Aust) Pty Ltd (licensee) holds a general late-night licence for a premises in South Yarra.

On 19 August 2023 liquor inspectors attended the premises and conducted a routine unannounced liquor inspection and found that liquor was supplied not in accordance with the licence, in that the premises was over the maximum patron capacity permitted by the licence.

On 12 December 2024, the licensee pleaded guilty to supplying liquor not in accordance with the licence contrary to s108(1) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (LCR Act).

The Magistrates’ Court found the charge proven and ordered the licensee to pay a fine of $1,000.

Monday 9 December 2024 – Nuzzon Pty Ltd

The accused was identified and investigated for unlicensed selling of liquor at a premises in Springvale in early 2023. The accused had previously held a licence which had expired.

LCV notified the accused in May 2023 that the accused’s licence had expired yet the accused continued to sell liquor over an extended period of time and did not obtain a licence. The accused also failed to provide documents requested buy liquor inspectors and provided false information.

On 9 December 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty to:

• offering or supplying liquor for sale whilst not a licensee contrary to s107(1) of the LCR Act;
• failing to respond to notices to produce contrary to s130E(b) of the LCR Act; and
• making false and misleading statements contrary to s118(1) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the accused to pay an aggregate fine of $27,500.

Thursday 31 October 2024 – CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd

On 2 December 2022, CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd (Accused) was granted a general liquor licence to operate the Cumberland Hotel (Premises).

Prior to the grant of the licence:

• on 12 September 2022, the company directors of CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd signed a loan agreement with two other parties; and
• on 4 October 2022, another party deposited a significant amount of funds into the Accused’s bank account.

The loan and deposit covered a significant portion of the purchase price and ongoing costs for the Premises. Due to the size of the funds, these parties had a stake in the business and could significantly influence its management and operations. However, the Accused failed to declare them as associates in contravention of section 103A(2) of the LCR Act.

The licence included a condition that James Consiglio was not to have any involvement in the business and was not allowed to attend the Premises during trading hours and whilst it was open to the public. However, the Commission liquor inspectors subsequently observed James Consiglio working at the Premises. On that basis, the Accused failed to supply liquor in accordance with the liquor licence in contravention of section 108(1) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay an aggregate fine of $1,000 without conviction, as well as the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Thursday 31 October 2024 – Caleb Consiglio

On 2 December 2022, CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd was granted a general liquor licence to operate the Cumberland Hotel (Premises). Caleb Consiglio (Accused) is the sole director of the company.

The licence included a condition that James Consiglio was not to have any involvement in the business and was not allowed to attend the Premises during trading hours and whilst it was open to the public.

Prior to the grant of the licence:

• on 12 September 2022, James Consiglio and the Accused signed a loan agreement with two other parties; and
• on 4 October 2022, another party deposited a significant amount of funds into the bank account of CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd.

The loan and deposit covered a significant portion of the purchase price and ongoing costs of the Premises. Due to the size of the funds, these parties had a stake in the business and could significantly influence its management and operations. However, the Accused failed to declare them as associates. This omission was a false or misleading statement in contravention of section 118(1) of the LCR Act.

On 30 November 2022, prior to the grant of the licence, the Accused emailed the Commission falsely advising that he and James Consiglio had severed ties. However, the Commission liquor inspectors subsequently observed James Consiglio working at the Premises.

The Accused’s false or misleading statements to the Commission in relation to James Consiglio’s continued involvement in the Premises was in contravention of section 118(1) of the LCR Act. In addition, James Consiglio’s continued involvement in the business of the Premises was in breach of the conditions of the liquor licence, in contravention of section 108(1) of the LCR Act.

On 7 February 2023 and 17 February 2023, the Accused provided the Commission a number of documents pursuant to the statutory notice to produce. He indicated that copies of all bank accounts held by CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd had been provided. However, a number of bank statements were missing. He provided further statements by email, but failed to provide one statement which showed that James Consiglio had actively deposited and withdrawn money from the account.

The Accused’s failure to provide the relevant bank statements in response to the statutory notice to produce was in contravention of section 130E(b) of LCR Act. In addition, the Accused failure to provide any statements from a second account being used by the CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd (or to declare its existence), was an omission that was false or misleading in contravention of section 118(1) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay an aggregate fine of $3,000 without conviction, as well as the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Tuesday 22 October 2024 and Tuesday 26 November – Peasant Gastronomy Pty Ltd trading as Peasant & Ors

Peasant Gastronomy Pty Ltd has three directors, who collectively are the accused.

In November 2023, LCV received an anonymous complaint alleging that the accused was selling liquor at a premises in Ballarat whilst not a licensee.

Liquor inspectors attended the premises and found the venue to be supplying liquor and the accused did not hold a licence. The accused advised that they believed they were able to operate under a licence held by a third party with respect to the premises.

The accused pleaded guilty to offering or supplying liquor for sale whilst not a licensee contrary to s107 of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered:

• the company to pay a fine of $4,000; and
• each director to pay a fine of $2,000.

Thursday 17 October 2024 - Shi Dai International Business Trading Pty Ltd

On 1 November 2023 at 11:30am, a liquor inspector for the Commission attended Shi Dai Supermarket, located in Preston (Premises) and owned by Shi Dai International Business Trading Pty Ltd (Accused), as part of conducting routine inspections of liquor licensed premises in the area.

At the inspection, the inspector gathered evidence of liquor being offered for sale on the Premises. Further, at the inspection, the inspector was sold two liquor beverages by the sole director of the Accused, both labelled on the inspector’s receipt of sale as ‘FRESH MEAT’. The Informant did not see a liquor licence on display at the Premises. Checks confirmed that the Accused does not hold a liquor licence in the state of Victoria.

On 13 December 2023, the inspector issued the Accused with a notice to produce in accordance with section 130(1)(a) of the LCR Act, requiring the production of information in relation to the Accused’s having sold liquor. The Accused was unable to provide relevant material in response to the notice. However, in the course of making their own enquiries, the inspector was able to identify certain historic liquor suppliers of the Accused.

On 17 October 2024, the Accused pled guilty to having sold liquor between 1 September 2023 and 1 November 2023, inclusive, whilst not holding a liquor licence, in addition to having offered liquor for sale throughout the aforementioned period, whilst not holding a liquor licence, all in contravention of section 107(1) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay an aggregate fine of $1500 without conviction, in addition to the Commission’s costs.

Thursday 15 August 2024 - Unihill Trading Pty Ltd

On 11 October 2023 at 12:12pm, a liquor inspector for the Commission attended Unihill Asian Grocery, located in Bundoora (Premises) and owned by Unihill Trading Pty Ltd (Accused), as part of conducting routine inspections of liquor licensed premises in the area.

At the inspection, the inspector gathered evidence of liquor being offered for sale on the Premises. Additionally, the inspector gathered evidence of liquor having been sold on the Premises. The inspector did not see a liquor licence on display at the Premises. Checks confirmed that the Accused does not hold a liquor licence in the state of Victoria.

On 13 December 2023, the inspector issued the Accused with a notice to produce in accordance with section 130(1)(a) of the LCR Act, requiring the production of information in relation to the Accused’s having sold liquor.

On 19 December 2023, the Accused responded to the notice to produce with a report evidencing distinct transactions in which liquor was sold.

On 15 August 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty to selling liquor on 49 separate occasions between 28 June 2023 and 7 October 2023 whilst not holding a liquor licence, in addition to offering liquor for sale on 11 October 2023 whilst not holding a liquor licence, all in contravention of section 107(1) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay an aggregate fine of $1500 without conviction, in addition to the Commission’s costs.

Friday 2 August 2024 – Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd

Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd (Accused) leased premises in Collingwood, where it held a liquor licence since June 2016 for the premises trading as Beermash. On 6 May 2023, Liquor Inspectors visited the premises, finding that the ground floor operated as Beermash, a craft beer bar, and the first floor as Above Board, a cocktail lounge.

The Commission was later informed that the licence applied to both floors and that liquor had been supplied by the Beermash venue since July 2016 and by the Above Board venue since November 2016. Beermash Pty Ltd was the company that operated the Beermash venue, and Aboveboard Bar Pty Ltd was the company that operated the Above Board venue. Neither company held a liquor licence.

After the liquor inspection, trading ceased and the Accused company took over operations of both venues. However, between 11 May 2023 and 31 August 2023, over $340,000 from liquor sales was deposited into the Beermash Pty Ltd bank account, rather than to the Accused company’s bank account. Of that sum, approximately $50,000 was manually transferred from the Beermash Pty Ltd bank account to the Accused company’s account. Beermash Pty Ltd continued to pay wages and suppliers in connection with the operation of the Beermash venue operated at that time by the Accused company, and rent and utilities to the Accused company.

On 2 August 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty to:

• two charges of letting or sub-letting part of the licensed premises without consent of the Commission, contrary to section 105(1) of the LCR Act; and
• two charges of permitting another person to carry on a business of supplying liquor on the licensed premises without consent of the Commission, contrary to section 106(1)(a) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay a fine of $5,000 without conviction, and ordered to pay the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Friday 2 August 2024 – Beermash Pty Ltd

Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd leased premises in Collingwood, where it held a liquor licence since June 2016 for the premises trading as Beermash.

On 6 May 2023, Liquor Inspectors visited the premises, finding that the ground floor operated as a craft beer bar. The Commission was later informed that, since July 2016, Beermash Pty Ltd (Accused) was the company that operated Beermash. The Accused company did not hold a liquor licence.

After the liquor inspection, trading ceased and Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd took over operations. However, between 11 May 2023 and 31 August 2023, over $340,000 from liquor sales was deposited into Accused company’s bank account, rather than to the Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd bank account. Of that sum, approximately $50,000 was manually transferred from the Accused company’s bank account to the Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd bank account. The Accused company continued to pay wages and suppliers in connection with the operation of the Beermash venue operated at that time by Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd, and rent and utilities to Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd.

On 2 August 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty to unlicensed selling of liquor.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charge proven and ordered the Accused to pay a fine of $3,000 without conviction, and ordered to pay the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Friday 2 August 2024 – Aboveboard Bar Pty Ltd

Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd leased premises in Collingwood, where it held a liquor licence since June 2016 for the premises trading as Beermash.

On 6 May 2023, Liquor Inspectors visited the premises, finding that the first floor of the premises was trading as Above Board, a cocktail lounge. The Commission was later informed that, since November 2016, Aboveboard Bar Pty Ltd (Accused) was the company that operated Above Board. The Accused company did not hold a liquor licence.

After the liquor inspection, trading ceased and Hennessy Projects Pty Ltd took over operations.

On 2 August 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty to unlicensed selling of liquor.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charge proven and ordered the Accused to pay a fine of $2,000 without conviction, and ordered to pay the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Friday 2 August 2024 – Bar Liberty Pty Ltd

Provenance Food and Wine Co Pty Ltd holds several liquor licences for a Fitzroy premises, trading as Bar Liberty.

On 17 June 2023, Liquor Inspectors visited the Fitzroy premises and collected receipts for liquor sales, which listed an ABN assigned to Bar Liberty Pty Ltd (Accused). The Accused company did not hold a liquor licence.

The Commission was later informed that, since November 2016, the Accused company had been selling liquor and receiving proceeds from liquor sales at the Fitzroy premises.

The Accused company ceased trading at Bar Liberty on 29 June 2023.

On 2 August 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty to unlicensed selling of liquor.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charge proven and ordered the Accused to pay a fine of $2,000 without conviction, and ordered to pay the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Tuesday 30 July 2024 – Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Limited

Between 8 September 2022 and 1 November 2022, a 16-year-old minor frequented three licensed premises managed by Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Limited (Accused): the Albion Charles Hotel in Northcote, the Rose Shamrock Hotel in Reservoir, and the Doncaster Hotel in Doncaster (Accused Venues).

CCTV footage showed that the minor was alone during his visits at the Accused Venues, primarily to gamble in the gaming rooms, leaving shortly thereafter, often within a few minutes.

By the date of the contest mention on 30 July 2024, the Commission agreed to dispose of the prosecution by way of an enforceable undertaking by the Accused Company to do the following:

• Within 12 months of the undertaking, the Accused Company is to make a donation of $40,000 to charity to be agreed on.
• Within 6 months of the undertaking, the Accused Company is to commission an up-to-date audit regarding the prevention of unaccompanied minors at the Accused Venues.
• Within 3 months of the audit, the Accused Company is to implement recommendations of that audit.

Tuesday 2 July 2024 – Acce Wright Pty Ltd

On 14 July 2023, Acce Wright Pty Ltd (Accused) applied for a liquor licence for Angie’s Café Bake Shop in Kyneton (Premises).

Before the licence was granted, the Commission’s liquor inspectors found evidence online that the Accused had sold liquor at an event on 19 August 2023. Selling liquor without a licence was contrary to section 107 of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charge proven and adjourned the matter on good behaviour for 3 months with the following conditions:

• The Accused to pay a fine of $200; and
• The Accused to pay the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Tuesday 2 July 2024 – Arjun & Pari Pty Ltd

On 28 November 2023, Arjun & Pari Pty Ltd (Accused) applied for a transfer of liquor licence for Swan Reach General Store (Premises).

On 30 November 2023, the Accused was informed by the Commission that it could not sell or supply liquor until the transfer was approved.

On 28 December 2023, the Commission’s liquor Inspectors attended the Premises and found evidence of liquor being advertised and sold without a licence in place, contrary to section 107 of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charge proven and adjourned the matter on good behaviour for 2 years with the following conditions:

• The Accused to pay a fine of $700; and
• The Accused to pay the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Wednesday 29 May 2024 – James Consiglio

James Consiglio (Accused) signed a loan agreement with two other parties, which covered a significant portion of the purchase price for Cumberland Hotel (Premises). Due to the size of the loan, they had a stake in the business and could significantly influence its management and operations. However, the Accused failed to declare them as associates of CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd when he completed the liquor licence application on behalf of the company.

On 2 December 2022, CJ & JA Consiglio Pty Ltd was granted the liquor licence for the Premises. The licence included a condition that the Accused was not to have any involvement in the business and was not allowed to attend the Premises during trading hours and whilst it was open to the public.

The Accused notified the Commission that he had no involvement with business. However, the Commission liquor inspectors subsequently observed the Accused working at the Premises.

The Accused’s false and misleading statements to the Commission in relation to the licensee’s associates and in relation to his involvement in the business were in contravention of section 118(1) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay an aggregate fine of $1,500 without conviction, as well as the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Thursday 16 May 2024 – Mhrings Pty Ltd trading as V8 Liquor and Pizza

Mhrings Pty Ltd (Licensee) holds a general liquor licence for premises located in Pakenham. The company has a sole director. The licensee and its director are collectively the accused below.

At the time that the licensee applied to have the licence transferred to the licensee, the accused did not declare any associate of the licensee. However, inspections of the premises and evidence gathered showed that the director’s husband was the licensee’s associate within the meaning of the LCR Act.

In addition, it was found from inspections at the premises that liquor was supplied not in accordance with the licence in that the premises was a bottle-shop with liquor being supplied at the premises for off-site consumption only, in spite of a condition of the licence providing that off-site consumption must not be the whole of the licensee’s business.

On 16 May 2024, the accused pleaded guilty to:

• failing to notify the Commission of an associate within 14 days of the occurrence of a person becoming a licensee’s associate contrary to section 103A(2) of the LCR Act; and
• supplying liquor not in accordance with a licence contrary to section 108(1)(a)(i) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered:

• the licensee to pay an aggregate fine of $1,500; and
• the director to pay an aggregate fine of $1,500.

Monday 13 May 2024 - New Chau Than Hung Pty Ltd trading as ARC Asian Grocers

On 6 October 2022, the Commission’s liquor inspectors attended premises trading as ARC Asian Grocers, located in Preston, owned by New Chau Than Hung Pty Ltd (Accused) and purchased a bottle of soju and a can of ready-to-drink liquor.

Checks confirmed that the Accused did not hold a liquor licence in the state of Victoria.

On 11 January 2023, inspectors again attended and observed multiple bottles of soju on the shelf.

On 3 February 2023, inspectors again attended and observed a broad range of liquor offered for sale.

On 13 May 2024, the Accused pleaded guilty to charges of unlicensed selling of liquor or offering of liquor for sale contrary to section 107 of the LCR Act and one charge of failing to comply with a Notice to Produce contrary to section 130E(b) of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay an aggregate fine of $2500.

Monday 25 March 2024 – Redesdale Estate Pty Ltd

On 28 December 2022, the Commission’s liquor inspectors observed that the website for Redesdale Estate Pty Ltd (Accused) was offering liquor for sale without a licence, contrary to section 107 of the LCR Act.

One of the directors of the Accused company previously held a liquor licence between 16 October 2002 and 30 June 2016.

The Accused was notified that it did not hold a liquor licence. On 15 February 2023, inspectors observed that the Accused’s website was still offering liquor for sale without a licence. The Accused admitted that the licence expired in 2016.

On 8 June 2023, inspectors again observed that the Accused’s website was offering liquor for sale without a licence. Inspectors contacted the Accused about it.

Inspectors obtained evidence that the Accused was still either selling or offering liquor for sale without a licence between July and August 2023.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay an aggregate fine of $2,500 without conviction, as well as the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Wednesday 14 February 2024 – Georgia Dale trading as ‘Georgies Wines’

Georgia Dale (Accused) held a pre-retail liquor licence which was not renewed by 31 March 2022 or at all. This made any supply of liquor or offering of liquor for sale from 1 April 2022 an offence under section 107 of the LCR Act.

An investigation by LCV showed that the Accused sold liquor via her website and directly to licensees on 21 days between 11 June and 2 November 2022 for a total amount of over $7,000. During this time, the Accused also offered liquor for sale at the Williamstown Farmers Market and via her website and Instagram account.

The Accused pleaded guilty on 14 February 2024 to one rolled-up charge of selling liquor or offering liquor for sale between 11 June and 2 November 2022 while not a licensee.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charge proven and sentenced the Accused to an adjourned undertaking on condition of good behaviour for 12 months.

Monday 4 December 2023 – Alan Gibson

On 25 August 2022, the Commission’s liquor inspectors attended Gibson’s Wine Store (Premises) and observed liquor being offered for sale. Alan Gibson (Accused) admitted to supplying liquor while operating the business as a sole trader when not the holder of a liquor licence, contrary to section 107 of the LCR Act.

The Accused’s company, Crossgare Investments Pty Ltd, had previously held a general licence for the Premises, but it was deregistered on 4 August 2019.

On 2 September 2022, the inspectors attended the Premises again and ascertained that liquor was still being offered for sale without a licence.

The Magistrates’ Court found the charges proven and ordered the Accused to pay a fine of $200 without conviction, as well as the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Monday 13 November 2023 – Amphai Thai Groceries Pty Ltd trading as ‘Amphai Thai Groceries’

In September 2022, the Victorian Liquor Commission received information alleging that Amphai Thai Groceries Pty Ltd (Accused) was selling liquor at its store at 1-3 St Johns Avenue, Springvale. The Accused is not a licensee.

On 27 October 2022, Liquor Inspectors attended the store and purchased a bottle of rum from the Accused.

On 13 November 2023, the Accused pleaded guilty to one charge of unlicensed selling of liquor, contrary to section 107 of the LCR Act.

The Magistrates’ Court adjourned the matter on good behaviour for 12 months with the following conditions:

• The Accused to pay $1,500 to the Court Fund.
• The Accused to pay the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

Tuesday 21 November 2023 – Chadstone Market Pty Ltd trading as ‘Chadstone Market’

In December 2022, the Victorian Liquor Commission received a complaint that Chadstone Market Pty Ltd (Accused) was selling liquor at its store at 1-2/70 Batesford Rd, Chadstone. The Accused does not hold a liquor licence.

The complainant witnessed his son (a minor) purchase an alcoholic beverage from the Accused on 18 December 2022. At no point did the staff member ask for identification. The complainant informed the staff member that selling alcohol without a licence, and to minors, was an offence.

On 27 December 2022, Liquor Inspectors attended the store and purchased two bottles of soju.

On 21 November 2023, the Accused pleaded guilty to two charges of unlicensed selling of liquor, contrary to section 107 of the LCR Act, and one charge of supplying liquor to a minor, contrary to section 119(3).

The Magistrates’ Court fined the Accused $4,000 without conviction and ordered the Accused to pay the Commission’s costs of the prosecution.

24 January 2024 - Rapture Ent Group Pty Ltd

This undertaking relates to requirements around crowd controllers and amplified music.

30 December 2024 – ANDZAK Pty Limited

The undertaking relates to complying with limitations on the provision of live music entertainment.

9 December 2024 – ALDI Stores

The undertaking relates to a requirement to notify the Commission if any ALDI stores located in Victoria resume the practice of enabling liquor to be sold via self-check outs.

22 November 2024 – Twothreeone Pty Ltd

The undertaking relates to a requirement to notify the Commission if the licensee intends for sexually explicit entertainment to be provided.

2 August 2024 – Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Limited

The undertaking relates to compliance with certain requirements by 29 July 2025.

17 November 2023 – NMC Concreting Pty Ltd

The undertaking relates to compliance with certain requirements by 31 December 2024.

24 January 2017 – JDOT Pty Ltd

The undertaking relates to compliance with an acoustic report which is attached to the undertaking.

3 August 2015 – Jack Poon trading as Karaoke Box Hit Studio

The undertaking is in place for three years from the date of signature by all parties.