Clarity for supermarkets or not?

Clarity for supermarkets or not?
Thursday 13 July, 2017
The Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority has recently provided clarity on a supermarkets ability to display and promote alcohol within single alcohol areas. ARLA’s decision has been appealed to the High Court.
The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (“the Act”) has placed restrictions on supermarkets and grocery stores in terms of where alcohol can be displayed and promoted within the premises. When issuing or renewing a licence, section 112(2) requires that District Licensing Committees (“DLC”) and the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (“ARLA”) impose a condition describing a “one area” within the premises to be the area in which the display and promotion of alcohol is permissible. When describing the area, there are certain constraints under which a DLC or ARLA is required to operate (section 113(5)). The area must not include the most direct pedestrian routes between the entrance of the premises and the main body of the premises. Further, the area must not include the most direct pedestrian route between the main body of the premises and a point of sale or check-out. The purpose of this, as described in section 112(1), is to reduce the exposure of shoppers to displays and promotions of alcohol and advertisements of alcohol. Those are to be contained only within the single alcohol area (“SAA”).
The provisions of the Act relating to SAAs have been the subject of a number of court decisions, including the well-known Court of Appeal decision of J & C Vaudrey Ltd v Canterbury Medical Officer of Health [2016] NZCA 539. Those decisions have generally provided some clarity for applicants and decision-makers on the application of the relevant sections. However, there are still a number of uncertainties with respect to the internal area of SAAs.
A recent ARLA decision has provided further clarity and will be useful for DLCs considering a SAA (A M MacMaster v G & B Hasler Limited [2017] NZARLA PH169). The Hasler decision relates to the renewal of an off-licence in respect of premises in Dannevirke. The Medical Officer of Health (“MoH”) appealed the DLC decision to ARLA on the basis that end of aisle displays and the angling of shelves within the SAA increase the exposure of customers to alcohol products, and large illuminated signs could be seen outside the SAA.
In its decision ARLA stated that the Act requires that the SAA be identifiable relative to the wider premises where alcohol cannot be displayed or promoted. In ARLA’s view, it is the relative position of the SAA that limits exposure of shoppers to the display, promotion and advertisement of alcohol and a licensee is free to arrange shelving and display units within the perimeter of the SAA in any manner it sees fit. That being the case, ARLA held that the Act does not prohibit end-of-aisle displays or the angling of shelves within a SAA. In terms of the signage ARLA held that there is nothing in the Act which prohibits the display, promotion or advertisement of alcohol at a place within the SAA nor does the Act imply a “visual state of affairs” as well as a physical location element.
The Hasler decision has been appealed to the High Court by the MoH. Until the time that the Hasler decision is overturned by the High Court, it is the best authority available to DLCs who are considering conditioning the internal arrangement of SAAs. We will report on the outcome of the appeal once it is available.
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
