Endeavour Group Limited v Victorian Liquor Commission (Review & Regulation) [2025] VCAT 843 (Dan Murphy’s, Daylesford)
- ACV Admin
- Dec 9, 2025
- 4 min read
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Administrative Division, Review and Regulation List
Hearing dates: 28–31 July; 1, 5–8, 11, 14–15 August 2025
Decision date: 29 September 2025
Tribunal members: Deputy President Teresa Bisucci and Senior Member Rachel Naylor
Applicant: Endeavour Group Limited
Respondent: Victorian Liquor Commission
Original decision: Licence refused by the Victorian Liquor Commission
Joined parties: Hepburn Shire Council and local residents
Legal issue: Endeavour brings its application to VCAT under s 169 of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. Under s 51 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), VCAT’s function is to review the Commission’s refusal of a packaged liquor licence.
Outcome: Decision of the Commission affirmed; liquor licence refused.
Background and licence application
Endeavour Group Limited sought a packaged liquor licence for a proposed Dan Murphy’s store at 63 Central Springs Road, Daylesford. The application, first lodged in July 2022, followed an earlier Commission delegate’s decision in December 2022 to grant the licence. That decision was overturned on internal review by the Victorian Liquor Commission in August 2024, which refused the licence due to risk of harm to minors.
Endeavour applied to VCAT for review of that refusal. The proposed store had a reduced trading area (563.4 m²) and amended trading hours (generally 9 am – 8/9 pm, shorter on Sundays and ANZAC Day).
The proposed site sits at a key intersection adjacent to the Daylesford Primary School, childcare centre, public swimming pool, and town bus stop, with residential streets to the west and southwest used by children. Endeavour argued the commercial zoning and “eyes on the street” meant risks were mitigated.
Expert witnesses appeared for both sides. Endeavour called experts in planning and economics. Council and residents gave social and public health evidence, including from criminology and public health academics about alcohol-related harm, youth vulnerability, and secondary supply.
Legal framework and approach
VCAT applied the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic), emphasising the object of harm minimisation (s 4(1)(a)) and the discretion to refuse a licence if granting it would be “conducive to or encourage harm” (s 44(2)(b)(ii) and s 47(2)).
VCAT noted the precautionary approach endorsed in Kordister Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing and the Macedon Ranges Shire Council v Romsey Hotel, holding that while the review was a hearing de novo, considerable weight must be given to the Commission’s reasoning due to its statutory expertise.
Evidence and issues
VCAT identified the key issues as:
The relevant community to be considered;
Whether granting the licence would be conducive to or encourage harm (particularly to minors);
Whether granting the licence would detract from the amenity of the area;
Whether granting the licence would facilitate diversity of licensed facilities;
Whether the proposed licence conditions were satisfactory harm mitigation techniques; and
Whether granting the licence would contribute to responsible industry development.
Endeavour’s submissions:
The proposed store was “small” by Dan Murphy’s standards and located in a busy, surveilled area;
Its management systems, RSA training, reduced signage and product range mitigated risk;
The “harm minimisation” object was confined to misuse and abuse of alcohol, not exposure to lawful sales; and
Anecdotal evidence about “generational drinking spots” was unreliable.
Objectors and the Commission:
Emphasised Daylesford’s small size, youth population, and concentration of family and educational facilities;
Cited data (including Hepburn Shire’s ACE Youth Strategy) showing underage drinking as a persistent issue;
Argued the store’s location near schools, a pool, and the only bus stop created risk of secondary supply to minors and normalisation of alcohol; and
Noted the lack of a 24-hour police presence and limited local support services.
Findings and reasoning
Harm minimisation and risk to minors
VCAT found the Commission’s concerns justified and concluded that granting the licence would be conducive to or encourage harm to minors, due to the site’s unique local, social, demographic and geographic circumstances, namely: continuous presence of children and youth near the site (school, pool, childcare, bus stop); potential for normalisation of alcohol exposure in an education/family precinct; existing evidence of underage drinking; and inadequate harm mitigation through Endeavour’s management systems.
VCAT held that the precautionary approach in harm minimisation justified refusal even without direct causal proof of harm. The risk was “not fanciful, but … real.”
Amenity
VCAT found no sufficient evidence that granting the licence would detract from amenity, noting planning conditions addressed traffic and noise, and signage was reduced.
Diversity and responsible development
VCAT accepted the store would increase consumer choice and diversity but held these factors were secondary to the paramount object of harm minimisation. Daylesford already had two comparable packaged liquor stores (Liquorland and Cellarbrations).
Conditions
VCAT agreed with the Commission that proposed licence conditions, including reduced hours, product limits, and community funding undertakings, would not sufficiently mitigate the harm risk.
Outcome and significance
The decision of the Victorian Liquor Commission was affirmed by VCAT and the liquor licence application for the proposed Dan Murphy’s at 63 Central Springs Road, Daylesford was refused.
VCAT reaffirmed that harm minimisation is the paramount object of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic) and must be applied precautionarily where there is an appreciable risk of harm to minors. Amenity, diversity, and industry development objectives remain relevant but cannot outweigh harm minimisation. Even well-managed operators cannot overcome refusal if local circumstances present unmitigable risks. VCAT endorsed giving considerable weight to the Commission’s expertise when reviewing its decisions.
