Endeavour Group Limited – refusal of packaged liquor licence (Dan Murphy’s, Daylesford)
- ACV Admin
- Dec 9, 2025
- 5 min read
Victorian Liquor Commission
Hearing dates: 3–6, 9–12 October; 15, 21–22, 27–28 November 2023; 29–30 January 2024
Decision date: 14 August 2024
Commissioners: Mr John Larkins (Acting Chair), Mr James O’Halloran (Deputy Chair), Ms Susan Timbs (Commissioner)
Applicant: Endeavour Group Limited
Venue: 63 Central Springs Road, Daylesford (proposed Dan Murphy’s)
Original decision: Licence granted to Endeavour
Legal issue: Application for internal review of the original decision to grant the licence to Endeavour under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic) s 153 (seven internal review applications)
Outcome: Applications for internal review granted - original decision to grant the licence to Endeavour set aside
Background and licence application
On 11 July 2022, Endeavour applied for a packaged liquor licence for premises at 63 Central Springs Road, Daylesford, to trade as ‘Dan Murphy’s’ (Licence Application). The proposed trading area was 626.66 m². Endeavour initially sought a licence with trading hours to 11 pm on most days, but later indicated it would accept reduced hours (generally to 9 pm, with earlier closing on Sundays and ANZAC Day).
Victoria Police did not object to the Licence Application. Hepburn Shire Council did object, and 204 objections were lodged. A delegate of the Commission granted the licence to Endeavour on 9 December 2022. Seven applications for internal review of the decision to grant the licence were then made under s 153 of the Act, by Hepburn Shire Council and some local residents (Internal Review).
The Commission conducted the Internal Review hearing over multiple dates in October and November 2023 and January 2024. The Commission also conducted site views on 21 March and 13 December 2023 as part of the Internal Review process.
The Commission’s Internal Review decision and reasons for decision included details about the town of Daylesford and the proposal, including: a 2021 census population data for Daylesford (2,781) and Hepburn Shire (16,604); Daylesford’s strong tourism industry; two existing specialist packaged liquor outlets (approx. 150 m² and 230 m² respectively) located close by to the proposed premises on/near Vincent Street; and the proposed premise’s 626.66 m² footprint on the periphery of the commercial area, which would more than double total specialist packaged liquor floor space if allowed.
The Commission confirmed that the “large packaged liquor outlet” provisions (s 27AA) did not apply because the proposed floor space is under 750 m², meaning objectors cannot rely on s 27AA and the stricter large package liquor regime to challenge the application.
Legal framework and approach
The Commission had regard to the objects of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic) (LCR Act), giving significant weight to harm minimisation, and took guidance from the Victorian Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kordister on adopting a conservative/precautionary approach where an appreciable risk of harm is identified.
Endeavour submitted that certain amendments made to the LCR Act in 2022 did not apply to its application for the licence. Regarding this ‘transitional provisions’ argument, the “large packaged liquor outlet” amendments did not apply, but the substitution of “harm” in s 44(2)(b)(ii) did apply.
Evidence considered
The Internal Review Applicants (including Hepburn Shire Council and local residents): Raised concerns about harms from the new licence, including underage drinking risks and site-specific vulnerabilities such as the store’s proximity to a primary school, school bus stop, family-oriented precinct, the limited availability of health and support services, and the small size and vulnerability of the Daylesford community; They also raised concerns about the impacts on amenity impacts such as were also raised (traffic/parking/signage/noise), along with submissions about store scale relative to the township.
Endeavour: Called expert evidence that relied on technical evidence of retail demand, spatial planning, social and amenity impacts, traffic and noise. Endeavour relied on a Plan of Management and policies addressing RSA, ID-checking of customers who appear under the age of 25, and secondary supply and related controls; it emphasised training, internal audits/mystery shops and its compliance culture. This evidence sought to demonstrate Endeavour had robust systems in place to minimise the risks of alcohol-related harm and prevent underage access.
Findings and reasoning
Harm minimisation and risk of harm to minors (secondary supply)
The Commission’s central finding was that granting the licence would be conducive to or encourage harm, specifically to minors, because there is an appreciable risk of increased secondary supply to minors, leading to increased alcohol consumption by minors and associated harm. This conclusion rests on the local, social, demographic and geographic circumstances of Daylesford, including:
an existing problem of underage drinking in Daylesford;
the Premises’ relative proximity to “generational” drinking spots (e.g., Lake Daylesford) compared with existing outlets, and its relative isolation from the town centre (reducing passive observation by community members);
proximity to the swimming pool and bus stop, where significant numbers of young people (some under and some over 18) congregate, increasing opportunities for secondary supply;
the lack of a 24-hour police presence in Daylesford; and
the Commission’s view that the Applicant’s policies and procedures would not substantially mitigate the identified risk.
Guided by Kordister, the Commission emphasised that harm minimisation is anticipatory and that a conservative/precautionary approach should be adopted where an appreciable risk is present; it found the risk here was real, not “fanciful” or “trivial.”
Exercising its discretion, the Commission placed significant weight on harm minimisation and concluded the appreciable risk to minors warranted refusal under s 44(2)(b)(ii). No licence conditions were identified by any party (or by the Commission) that would mitigate the risk of secondary supply to minors to an acceptable level.
Given this finding regarding minors determined the outcome of this case (i.e. it was a dispositive finding), the Commission did not need to make further findings on harm to other persons or in other ways (e.g., family violence or anti-social behaviour), though it carefully considered competing expert views on whether the store would increase consumption overall.
Amenity
On amenity, the Commission accepted that planning-permit matters (traffic/location/noise) had been considered in the planning process, and proceeded on the basis that those conditions would be complied with. It found the amenity evidence did not justify refusal under s 44(2)(b)(i).
Signage/location: A contemporaneous VCAT decision meant no pylon sign had been permitted; the Applicant indicated it would accept no pylon sign as a licence condition if granted. The Commission accepted that this reduced visibility would ameliorate any impact from signage, and found the academic literature provided did not support a conclusion that signage would affect children, placing no weight on this factor.
Disorderly behaviour: Crime Statistics Agency data showed very low numbers for “drunk and disorderly in public” offences in Daylesford (highest four in a single year), though the lack of after-hours police presence might affect reporting. The Commission broadly agreed with the Applicant that this material indicated minimal existing disruptive behaviour.
Diversity/responsible development
Subject to the harm finding, the Commission accepted that granting the application would facilitate diversity of licensed facilities reflecting community expectations, and contribute to the responsible development of the liquor industry.
Outcome and significance
The Commission granted the internal review applications, set aside the delegate’s 9 December 2022 decision, and refused the Original Application for a packaged liquor licence for Dan Murphy’s, Daylesford.
Site-specific risk to minors can be determinative. Where evidence supports an appreciable risk of secondary supply to minors arising from the location and context of a proposed liquor outlet, the Commission may refuse even where other objects (diversity, industry development) would otherwise be served.
When assessing “amenity,” the Commission is legally bound to look at the specific statutory factors (like nuisance, disorder, vandalism). Generalised amenity concerns (or those largely dealt with in planning) may carry limited weight in the absence of persuasive, licence-specific evidence.
Conditions are not a panacea. If the core risk (here, secondary supply to minors) cannot be substantially mitigated by conditions, refusal may follow notwithstanding comprehensive internal policies and training.
