Select Market Pty Ltd – refusal of packaged liquor licence
- ACV Admin
- Dec 9, 2025
- 3 min read
Victorian Liquor Commission
Hearing date: 17 April 2024
Decision date: 17 October 2024
Commissioners: Mr John Larkins (Acting Chair), Mr James O’Halloran (Deputy Chair), Ms Susan Timbs (Commissioner)
Applicant: Select Market Pty Ltd
Venue: Unit 1, 250 Flinders Street, Melbourne
Legal issue: Internal review under Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 (Vic), section 153
Outcome: Application refused, original decision affirmed
Background and application
Select Market Pty Ltd, a small tobacconist and snack food retailer located opposite Flinders Street Station, applied for a packaged liquor licence in August 2023 to sell alcohol for off-premises consumption. The original application was uncontested; Victoria Police and the City of Melbourne did not object.
The applicant initially proposed to serve liquor through a window on Degraves Street, citing safety concerns due to disruptive behaviour and theft inside the store. The Commission’s delegate refused the application on the basis that it contravened licensing requirements under section 11(1) of the Act and posed a risk of harm, contrary to the Act’s primary object (section 4(1)(a)). Given the applicant was already facing challenges from disruptive and intoxicated individuals, the delegate concluded the proposed premises layout would encourage public drinking—presenting a risk of secondary supply to minors and already intoxicated people—and was not in line with community expectations or in the interests of public safety.
An internal review was sought under section 153. The applicant submitted revised floorplans removing the external window service, removing products that could be considered appealing to minors, and introducing measures including CCTV, staff-only handling of liquor, and reduced visibility of stock from outside.
Legal issues and legislative framework
The Commission was required to undertake a fresh review under section 157(1) and determine whether to affirm, vary or substitute another decision. The key issues were:
Whether granting the application would be conducive to or encourage harm (section 44(2)(b)(ii));
Whether the application met the ‘predominant activity’ requirement for a packaged liquor licence (section 11(3)(aa));
Whether harm minimisation, the primary object of the Act (sections 4(1)(a) and 4(2)), would be served by the granting of the licence.
Harm is defined broadly in section 3(1) to include harm to minors, vulnerable persons or communities, family violence, and anti-social behaviour.
Evidence considered
Written submission from the applicant containing an itemised list of non-liquor products proposed to be sold on the premises;
A site visit and hearing evidence, including testimony from Mr Shahbazi (director);
A demographic and harm profile from Liquor Control Victoria, showing:
A SEIFA ranking in the bottom 10th percentile for socio-economic disadvantage, indicating significant disadvantage;
High rates of alcohol-related ambulance attendances (more than triple the state average), as reported by AODstats.org.au;
High rates of criminal incidents in the area;
National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines identifying higher alcohol harms in disadvantaged populations.
Mr Shahbazi also gave evidence of daily staff harassment, instances of robbery, and his assumption that many of the requests he had received regarding whether he sold alcohol were for patrons’ BYO-use at nearby restaurants.
Findings and reasoning
The Commission found that granting the application would be “conducive to or encourage the misuse of alcohol”, given:
The location’s high foot traffic, existing alcohol-related harm, and socio-economic disadvantage significantly increased the risk of negative outcomes if a packaged liquor licence were granted;
Although internal risk mitigation measures (e.g. CCTV, shutters, staff-only access to liquor) were positive, they could not sufficiently address external risks to public safety and amenity;
The proposed business model was unlikely to contribute to the responsible development of licensed premises or liquor, licensing and live music industries (section 4(1)(b)–(c));
There were already ten packaged liquor outlets within 500 metres (though the decision was not based on cumulative impact);
Given the above, it was unnecessary to determine whether the business met the ‘predominant activity’ test or fell within the prohibition on convenience stores (section 22(1)(c)).
The Commission stressed that harm minimisation must prevail where a risk of increased alcohol-related harm is credible and appreciable.
Conclusion
The Commission affirmed the original decision and refused the review application. This case reaffirms the primacy of harm minimisation under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. It highlights that even uncontested licence applications may be refused where local conditions (e.g. high crime, disadvantage, alcohol-related harm) create an unacceptable risk to public safety and amenity. Mitigation measures within the premises may be insufficient where external harms cannot be adequately controlled.
