vcat decision ro take away liquor licence, page-10

I have read the PPN decision several times and compared it with decisions made by the same Senior Member over the past few years and the harsh criticism of those decisions by those with a vested interest in clearing the clubs from King St.

If life was fair, we would all be rich and Collingwood would lose the AFL premiership by one point every year for the next 10 years. We need to focus on what has actually happened to PPN, not on what we think should have happened, fair or unfair.

The PPN directors were given warnings in 2008 and there was no doubt as to what the consequences would be. The directors left both themselves and the company wide open and now innocent mum & dad minority shareholders are suffering the consequences of inept management.

The VCAT Senior member said at 336:
" .......It is clear that the management of the venue has had many chances to improve its ways but has failed to do so. I find that it and its management are either unwilling or unable to manage this venue in a proper manner. Mr Trimble as Chief Executive of the respondent would or should have known about the warning, the issue of proceeding but did either nothing or not enough to improve the situation. Mr Micovski as manager seems to have taken little or no action to stop these litany of events continuing. Further, there seems to have been little discussion about these problems at Board level. The respondent being a public company surprisingly could not produce minutes of any such discussion. Mr Trimble offered, what I believe to be an unsatisfactory excuse, that board meetings were difficult because Mr Micovski worked at night and slept during the day......"

Back to me:
One thing I found hard to swallow was VCAT's acceptance of police opinion that certain persons were drunk when the BAR20 manager argued that they were not.

Imagine how many drink driving convictions would be handed out if mere police opinion was accepted instead of breathalizer evidence. Like .05, the unacceptable level of intoxification needs to be clearly defined as a specific blood alcohol reading. Bad behaviour is a separate matter and should not be tolerated whether the patrons are sober or drunk.

With VCAT legal expenses already incurred and a lot more costs to come with the Supreme Court appeal, it looks like any chance of a dividend this year has just been flushed down the gurgler.

I won't hold my breath waiting for PPN's Board to call an EGM to give its minority shareholders a say in the company's future.