Dunedin’s district licensing committee reconvened to hear on-licence and off-licence applications for the St Kilda Tavern yesterday.
The applications by JV Bars Ltd were opposed by police, the medical officer of heath delegate and the city’s chief licensing inspector.
Police questioned the suitability of the applicant as a 50% shareholder in the company, Jaspal Singh, had “failed to disclose convictions and previous involvement with the police”, a report to the committee said.
But the committee was yesterday presented with documentation for a full transfer of shares from Jaspal to the company’s director Vishav Singh.
Jaspal had earlier told the committee he would agree to transfer all his shares in JV Bars if it meant the pub’s liquor licences were granted.
The New Zealand Companies Register was updated during yesterday’s hearing to display Vishav as the 100% shareholder.
Chief licensing inspector Tanya Morrison said, regardless of the “very last minute changes” to the company’s structure, it was Jaspal who primarily negotiated the purchase of the St Kilda Tavern.
“Vishav Singh had little involvement, by his own admission, nor had he undertaken any real due diligence himself.
“How will he now function as the sole director shareholder?”
The company had operated the tavern on temporary liquor licences for the past five months and no issues had been identified during that time, Ms Morrison said.
But she questioned why it had taken so long for information including a training certificate, draft audit plan, procedure checklist and other documentation to be undertaken — a lot of which was presented within the past week.
It was earlier suggested an audit conducted by a consultant hired by Vishav could be a condition imposed on the licences.
Ms Morrison said if he was suitable and capable in wanting to undertake such an audit, then he did not have to be made to do it.
“It’s unusual to have to have a condition to do the right thing — just do it.”
Medical officer of health delegate Aaron Whipp said the creation of systems and other documentation were “knee-jerk reactions” and questioned counsel’s involvement in creating them.
The transfer of shares had also happened during the middle of the hearing.
“How reactive has this been, and shouldn’t of this all been proactive?”
Counsel Kate Logan said the proposed audit condition was not to suggest an audit would not occur anyway.
It was intended to provide the committee with “some security or assurance”.
“I think it’s unfair to hold the proposal of a condition against an applicant in the way that’s happening here.”
Criticism of counsel’s involvement should also not be held against Vishav.
He had taken on board comments made by the agencies and demonstrated an appropriate response, Ms Logan said.
“It would be more helpful if the agencies worked with an applicant on these matters, rather than simply suggesting that their improvements are knee-jerk.”
The hearing was adjourned and a decision is expected to be made later this month.
