Review of the Carriers and Innkeepers Act 1958, May 1998

Chapter 6 – Carriers and Innkeepers Act 1958

[Return to Table of Contents]

OVERVIEW

6.1 In Victoria, as in most Australian States and Territories, legislation exists which limits the strict liability of an innkeeper at common law to a nominal sum, subject to the innkeeper displaying the statutory notice as required.[185] However, innkeepers remain fully liable for the default, neglect or wilful acts of themselves and their servants.

6.2 This Chapter commences with an outline of the development of the Victorian Act, followed by a detailed examination of the current legislation, and identification of the perceived problems with the Act. The Chapter then considers whether the legislation need be retained and, if so, whether as a separate piece of legislation or whether the provisions may be inserted in another Act.

6.3 There are a number of problems with the Victorian legislation. The language and style of the current Act, even though substantially rewritten as recently as 1970, are outdated. The Act relies heavily on common law definitions and concepts that, as discussed in the preceding Chapter, are uncertain and inappropriate for application to modern dealings. Further, the caps on liability were set in 1970, and have been outstripped by inflation. These problems are discussed in detail below.

6.4 Hotel owners have made it clear, in submissions and evidence put to the Committee, that they support the retention of the Act in its current form.[186] They argue that any change to the Act that may expose them to greater liability would impose further costs on the industry, which would ultimately place Victorian hotels at a competitive disadvantage.

DEVELOPMENT OF VICTORIAN LEGISLATION

6.5 In 1859, An Act to Amend the Law relating to Innkeepers Carriers and Others was introduced. The provisions of that Act relating to liability for damage to or loss of property applied to both innkeepers and carriers without distinction. In summary[187], the Act provided that:

• an innkeeper was not liable for loss of or injury to valuable goods (as described in the Act) worth over £10 in value unless, at the time of the bringing of the goods into the inn, the value and nature of the goods were declared;[188]

• in that case, the innkeeper could demand an increased rate of charge, provided he or she displayed in a conspicuous place a notice indicating the increased rates applicable - if the notice was not so displayed, the innkeeper lost the protection of the Act;[189]

• the innkeeper was obliged, if required, to sign a receipt for the goods - if the innkeeper did not, he or she lost the protection of the Act;[190]

• innkeepers were liable at common law where the protection of the Act did not apply, and no public notices or declarations were effective to limit that liability;[191] and

• the protection of the Act did not apply to negligent or felonious acts by employees of the innkeeper.[192]

6.6 Under the 1859 Act, an innkeeper was able to contract out of his or her common law liability, as the Act did not affect any "special contracts" between innkeeper and customer (unlike the prohibition on public notices and declarations), provided the latter signed the agreement.[193]

6.7 The 1859 Act did not include any definitions of "inn" and "innkeeper", as it relied wholly on the common law definitions. The term "guest" was not used in the 1859 Act.

6.8 The regime introduced by the 1859 Act applied in substantially the same form until 1948, despite the re-enactment of the legislation as the Carriers and Innkeepers Acts of 1915 and 1928. The Carriers and Innkeepers Act of 1948, for the first time, drew a distinction between those provisions relating to carriers and those in respect of innkeepers. The sections that had previously applied to both carriers and innkeepers now applied to carriers only, and a new section was introduced to apply to innkeepers alone. Section 3 of the 1948 Act provided:

No innkeeper shall be responsible for the safe custody of any goods or chattels the property of any lodger or guest above the value of Ten pounds unless such goods and chattels have been given into the care or charge of such innkeeper his servant or agent.

6.9 In 1958 the Carriers and Innkeepers Act was enacted to consolidate the law applying to carriers and innkeepers, being the 1928 and 1948 Acts. As a result, sections 3 to 25 of the 1958 Act (prior to any amendment) dealt exclusively with carriers. The sole provision in relation to innkeepers was section 26, derived from section 3 of the 1948 Act.

6.10 In 1970, the Carriers and Innkeepers (Amendment) Act was passed. The 1970 Act substituted sections 26 to 31 of the current Act, for section 26 of the 1958 Act. In other words, the provisions in the current Act dealing with innkeepers were introduced by the 1970 Act. The provisions of the current Act are discussed in detail below.

"INNKEEPER"

6.11 Under the Victorian Act, an "inn" is:

any hotel or motel and includes any establishment held out by the proprietor as offering food, drink and, if so required, sleeping accommodation, without special contract, to any traveller presenting himself who appears able and willing to pay a reasonable sum for the services and facilities provided and who is in a fit state to be received.[194]

6.12 An "innkeeper" means "the keeper of an "inn".[195]

6.13 The statutory definitions of "inn" and "innkeeper" are therefore substantially the same as the common law definitions.[196] It may be that these definitions are not broad enough to cover some modern forms of accommodation:

Certain anomalies exist in the present definition of an inn, particularly in view of the advent of motels in the community. Quite a number of motels in Victoria do not provide a meal service; they simply provide an accommodation service. From my interpretation of the definition which follows the British Act – I stand to be corrected if I am wrong – an inn means a common inn and an innkeeper means the keeper of an inn and a person who provides not only accommodation but also meals. What is the position then of motels which offer excellent accommodation but no meals? …. I do not think the Act embraces this type of accommodation which abounds throughout Australia.[197]

6.14 A preliminary review of the equivalent legislation in New South Wales, the Innkeepers Act, found:

Since the legislation was framed at the beginning of the century, a wide range of accommodation establishments has developed to cater for travellers, along with a tourism industry which has a major economic and social significance. The accommodation industry now includes establishments such as hotels, motels, motor inns, international standard resorts, guesthouses, private hotels, holiday apartments, timeshare apartments, ski lodges, "working farms", health farms, backpackers motels and so on. The Innkeepers Act is totally inadequate because it ignores the existence of this range of establishments, and therefore does not address the extent to which the operators of these other establishments should be liable for the personal property of their guests.[198]

6.15 It should be noted that the New South Wales legislation does not include a definition of "inn" and so relies entirely on the common law definition, while the Victorian legislation includes the definition outlined above. In practice, this makes little or no difference. Yet, contrary to what was said in relation to the New South Wales Act, the Victorian definition seems broad enough to at least include most accommodation establishments that provide meals. However, it would be very useful for the operators and guests of establishments such as guesthouses and backpacker lodges to be certain of their inclusion in, or exclusion from, the Act. Certain forms of accommodation such as caravans, which are covered under other legislation, would be excluded from the operation of the Act and this should perhaps be made clear in the Act.

6.16 Section 26(1) also refers to a "traveller", a term which is not defined in the Act, and which therefore derives its meaning from the common law. As noted in Chapter 5, there are significant problems associated with the common law concept of traveller. One line of authority held that a person who happened to be a local resident or who visited an inn for mere temporary refreshment was not considered a traveller, and so was not protected by innkeeper’s liability. However, more recent cases have indicated that this restriction no longer applies.

6.17 In line with these recent cases, the statutory definition of "inn", by using the words "… and, if so required, sleeping accommodation", suggests that it is not necessary for the traveller to engage sleeping accommodation in order for the Act to apply. In that case, people visiting a hotel for a meal would be covered by the Act. However, this broad reading of the definition of "inn" is restricted by the definition of "guest", discussed at length below, and it seems it may be the intention of the Act to apply only to those persons who "set off on a journey of some substantial distance".[199]

6.18 Clearly, there are a number of problems with the definitions used in the current Act. Further, the terms "inn" and "innkeeper" are archaic, and may mislead operators who are covered by the Act into believing that the Act is irrelevant to their establishments. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel Victoria ("OPC") indicated, in its submission to the Committee, that if statutory regulation were considered necessary, the provisions in the Act should not be retained in their current form as the words "inn" and "innkeeper" were outdated and inappropriate to describe the many forms of accommodation available today. The OPC favoured the use of the expressions "accommodation" and "accommodation provider".[200]

6.19 The hotel industry accepts that these expressions are archaic. The Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry ("VECCI") recognised that:

the term "innkeeper" is inappropriate and does not reflect the contemporary commercial accommodation provider and should be changed.[201]

6.20 The Victorian Accommodation Association ("VAA") agreed:

The executive of the [VAA] does, however, endorse the need to adjust the name "innkeeper" to something more attune[d] to today’s language and attitudes ….[202]

6.21 The Committee agrees with these views, and therefore considers that new terms should be substituted for "inn" and "innkeeper" which reflect the diverse nature of the modern accommodation industry and which do not import any of the common law uncertainty. Further, it should be made clear which establishments are covered by the Act, and which are not.

6.22 The Committee proposes to use the terms referred to above in its recommendations throughout the Report.

"GUEST"

6.23 The provisions of the Act which impose liability on innkeepers for the loss of or damage to property may only be accessed by a "guest", as defined by the Act. Under the Act:

a traveller shall be deemed to be a "guest" at an inn only on days during which he [or she] is entitled to use a room at the inn that has been engaged by or for him [or her] for sleeping.[203]

6.24 Once again, the section refers to a "traveller", a concept not defined in the Act and so determined by common law. As noted above, there has been some uncertainty at common law in relation to the definition of "traveller".

6.25 However, the section is otherwise a significant departure from the common law. As outlined in Chapter 5, recent cases have found that it is not necessary for a person to engage sleeping accommodation in order to be considered a guest. The Act, by contrast, clearly indicates that innkeeper’s liability will apply only in cases where the property lost or damaged belongs to a person who has engaged sleeping accommodation. Therefore, a person taking a meal or having a drink at an inn cannot access the innkeeper’s liability provisions under the Act.

6.26 The common law also draws a distinction between a guest and a lodger. This distinction is discussed at length in Chapter 5. In short, at common law, an innkeeper is liable only to a "guest", and not to a "lodger". In the Full Supreme Court of Victoria decision of Daniel, the majority held that a person who books accommodation in advance and then takes up the accommodation on the agreed terms is a lodger rather than a guest. The absurd result is that most modern travellers would not be protected at common law. As the Act does not indicate when a traveller will be considered a lodger, rather than a guest, the common law distinction applies.

6.27 The statutory definition of guest also determines the period during which the innkeeper may be liable to a guest for loss of or damage to the guest’s property. This period is not, however, entirely clear. It is necessary to consider the application of the definition to the actual situation of a guest who checks in the afternoon or evening of one day, then checks out in the morning or early afternoon of another day.

6.28 On one view, the person is a "guest" even after checking out of the hotel at, say, 10am in the morning, as the person was, for the earlier part of that day, entitled to use a room at that inn which was engaged for sleeping. On the other hand, it may be argued that the intention of the legislation is to cover people only for the period during which they are actually entitled to use the room.

6.29 The better view is that the first interpretation is correct. The first interpretation is also preferable from a policy point of view, given the number of travellers who leave their property in the care of innkeepers even after checking out. The point is, the definition is open to differing interpretations that may leave tourists and innkeepers uncertain of their rights and obligations.

6.30 The OPC recommended to the Committee that:

Reference to a "traveller" should be excluded from any definition substituting "inn" or in any definition of "guest"; the status of a person as a traveller is irrelevant in today’s social customs …. A definition of "guest" that does not import any of the common law ambiguity or uncertainty is necessary.[204]

6.31 The Committee considers that, given the doubts surrounding certain aspects of the definition of "guest", and the unsatisfactory state of the common law in relation to the distinction between "guest" and "lodger", a new definition of "guest" is required. The new definition must address these uncertainties and accord with the needs of modern travellers.

6.32 The Committee proposes to use the expression "accommodation user" in its recommendations throughout this Report.

LIABILITY OF INNKEEPER UNDER ACT

6.33 It is clear that hotel owners in Victoria are concerned with any amendment to the Act that may increase their liability for loss of or damage to guests’ property. Hotel owners oppose any change to the legislation in this respect. Their submissions are canvassed at length below. However, once again, the Committee considers that it must achieve a fair balance between the interests of the hotel owners, and those of their guests.

Preservation of common law liability

6.34 The Act expressly preserves common law liability principles.[205] Therefore, in those situations where the Act does not apply, for example because the Fourth Schedule notice is not displayed as required, liability will be determined according to common law principles.

6.35 The common law position was discussed at length in the preceding Chapter. It is apparent that there are many problems with the application of the common law to the relationship between innkeepers and their guests. As a result, the Committee considers that it is not appropriate for the liability of innkeepers to be determined, to any extent, by the common law.

Extent of liability

6.36 At common law, it is not certain whether an innkeeper is liable for damage to a guest’s property, or for loss of the property only.[206] One of the reasons behind the introduction of the 1970 amendments (in effect, the introduction of the current provisions governing innkeepers, as discussed above) was to:

make it clear that when a traveller is a guest at an inn the innkeeper shall be liable for damage to the traveller’s property to the same extent as he is liable for the loss of a traveller’s property.[207]

6.37 Therefore, the current Act expressly provides that an innkeeper is under the same liability to make good damage to property as is imposed in relation to the loss of goods.[208]

6.38 The Committee considers that this clarification of the common law is very useful and should be preserved in any amendment to the current legislation or new Act.

Limitation of liability for goods not in safe keeping

6.39 At common law, an innkeeper is strictly liable for loss of and (less certainly) damage to a guest’s property. No distinction is made between property deposited for safekeeping, and property not so deposited.

6.40 By contrast, the Act draws a distinction between goods deposited in safe custody, and goods not so deposited. The extent of an innkeeper’s liability for damage to or loss of a guest’s property not deposited for safekeeping, may be limited to the amount of $100, subject to compliance with the Act’s requirements.[209]

6.41 The submissions received by the Committee from hotel owners strongly oppose any change to the liability provisions of the Act. The AHA expressed a concern that, if hotels had unlimited liability, this may invite "unreasonable" claims against the hotel.[210] However, the AHA accepted that a measure of care was desirable, and so supported the retention of the existing limits.[211]

6.42 The RACV submitted that the limitation of liability in the Act should be retained, although the Act should be redrafted in a more modern and understandable form.[212]

6.43 In a letter to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, VECCI stated:

With regard to the cap of[sic] liability of $100 and $2000 for goods in safe custody, the industry believes that these levels [should] be maintained as a[sic] arbitrary figure, not as a level of current values.[213]

6.44 The Law Institute of Victoria ("LIV") agreed that a case could be made out for limiting the innkeeper’s liability for loss or damage to property which was not deposited for safekeeping, and where the loss or damage is not due to the negligence of the innkeeper and his or her employees. However, the LIV submitted that the limits on liability should be reviewed having regard to the costs and availability of insurance and having regard to internationally accepted norms.[214]

6.45 The Committee understands the concerns of hotel owners in relation to increased liability in this respect. The Committee agrees that liability for property not deposited for safekeeping should not be unlimited. However, the Committee notes that the cap on liability in respect of goods not in safekeeping was imposed in 1970. The figure of $100, then, ignores almost three decades of inflation. The Committee considers that this figure is outdated and, at the very least, should be replaced by a figure that represents current values.

6.46 However, the Committee recognises that any replacement figure will again soon be outstripped by inflation. The Committee therefore prefers a method of calculation of liability based on the daily tariff of the accommodation establishment. This calculation is discussed at length in Chapter 10. The Committee considers that this method will achieve a result that is fairer than imposing a blanket figure on all hotel owners, regardless of their standing. The Committee is of the view that a motel in Bendigo should not be subject to the same liability as a five star hotel in Melbourne.

Limitation of liability for goods in safe keeping

6.47 Under the Victorian Act, a cap is also placed on the liability of an innkeeper for property placed in safekeeping. The Act provides that, where a guest’s property is lost or damaged:

(i) while it is being held for safe custody after being deposited by or on behalf of the traveller with the innkeeper or a servant authorised or appearing to be authorised for the purpose; or

(ii) after the traveller or some person on his behalf was unable to deposit it as provided by paragraph (i) because the innkeeper or such servant failed or refused without reasonable excuse to receive it -

liability is limited to the amount of $2,000.[215]

6.48 An innkeeper or his or her servant may require a person wishing to deposit goods in safe custody to place them in a container and fasten or seal the container.[216] Further, as indicated above, the innkeeper will not be liable if he or she refuses to accept property for safekeeping with "reasonable excuse" – where, for example, the property is dangerous, or overly cumbersome.[217] In other words, an innkeeper may refuse to accept property for safekeeping where such refusal is reasonable.

6.49 Again, innkeepers strongly oppose any moves to change their liability in this respect. The AHA, for example, argued that the offer of security or custodial arrangements for the property of guests was not one of the "primary purposes" of the business of a hotel. Therefore, the AHA maintained, hoteliers should not be subject to unlimited liability for loss of or damage to a guest’s personal property in the same way that they would be liable for breach of the warranties implied by the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Clwth) ("TPA") in respect of the "primary services" of the hotel, being the provision of accommodation, food and entertainment services.[218]

6.50 However, the LIV submitted to the Committee:

It would seem appropriate that the innkeeper be fully liable for the loss or damage of goods which have been deposited for safe custody. Innkeepers should be responsible for taking all necessary security precautions and arranging insurance cover having regard to all of the circumstances. Liability should only be capped by legislation if members of the accommodation industry can demonstrate that it is not possible to obtain insurance on a reasonable basis.[219]

6.51 It is also worth noting that Victorian hotel owners have expressed a general desire that innkeeper’s liability in Victoria be in line with other States and Territories, in order that they not suffer any competitive disadvantage. In all other States and Territories, innkeepers are subject to unlimited liability for goods in safekeeping (whether under the common law or the relevant statute).[220]

6.52 The Committee understands the concerns of hotelkeepers in relation to increased liability. However, the Committee notes that the cap on liability in respect of property deposited for safekeeping was also imposed in 1970, and considers the sum of $2000 to be outdated.

6.53 Further, the Committee largely agrees with the views of the LIV, and considers that it may be preferable to impose unlimited liability on innkeepers where property is deposited for safekeeping. There are strong policy considerations in support of this conclusion. First, where innkeepers hold themselves out as offering this service, they should do everything reasonable to make sure that the property is secure. Also, once the guest has delivered the property to the innkeeper he or she is no longer in a position to safeguard the property, while the innkeeper is clearly in a position to secure the property - by employing properly trained staff, providing safety deposit boxes, and other security arrangements. Finally, the Committee considers it desirable to bring Victoria into line with the other States and Territories of Australia.

6.54 Despite the above, the Committee is of the view that there should be no obligation on innkeepers to provide a safe custody service for guests’ property. It is up to individual hotelkeepers whether they wish to provide such a service. However, where an innkeeper does choose to provide the service, the Committee believes that his or her liability for property deposited in safe custody should be unlimited. The analysis and recommendations below, therefore, apply only where innkeepers do choose to provide a safekeeping service.

6.55 The Committee also considers it appropriate that innkeepers providing a safekeeping service continue to be liable where: first, property is offered for safekeeping by the guest, and the innkeeper (or his or her servant) refuses without a reasonable excuse to accept the goods; and further, where the guest is unable to deposit the goods due to some default of the innkeeper (or his or her servant). This is the position under the current Act. The Committee notes that if liability in these circumstances did not exist, there would be no incentive for an innkeeper to accept any property for safekeeping, even where he or she provided the service. It is not clear from the current Act whether section 30(1)(a)(ii) imposes an obligation on an innkeeper to provide a safekeeping service. As noted above, the Committee considers that it should be a matter for the individual innkeeper to decide whether or not to provide a safe custody service. Therefore, the new Victorian legislation should make it clear that no such obligation is to be imposed on innkeepers.

6.56 Recognising the potential for increased claims against innkeepers due to the introduction of unlimited liability[221], the Committee is of the view that certain protections should be introduced or maintained to protect hotelkeepers from false or fraudulent claims. The Committee considers that guests depositing property for safe keeping should be obliged to reveal to the innkeeper the nature of the property and/or the approximate value of the goods being deposited. This information should ideally be recorded by the innkeeper on an invoice or receipt, a copy of which should be provided to the guest. Further, the innkeeper should be permitted to inspect the property, to determine whether it meets the description provided by the guest. The right of the hotel keeper to refuse property for safekeeping where reasonable, outlined above, should be maintained.

Statutory notice required

6.57 The limitation of liability under the Victorian Act to the amounts outlined above is subject to the conspicuous display at reception and in the guest’s room, of the notice set out in Schedule 4 of the Act, which reads as follows:[222]

6.58 Submissions from hotel owners opposed the amendment or repeal of the Act, on the ground that any change to the legislation would require the reprinting of these notices, which would be a great expense to the innkeepers. The AHA indicated:

To incorporate provisions in any other Act [or introduce new legislation] would involve significant compliance costs in terms of the prescribed notice that must be displayed in every room, and which refers specifically to the [Act].[223]

6.59 VECCI agreed:

At present innkeepers display Fourth Schedule Notices based on the present Act. If the provisions are moved into a different Act unnecessary compliance costs may arise as innkeepers may have to arrange for the printing and display of new Notices.

If such an action is ultimately deemed necessary, then savings and transitional provisions which ensure the validity of existing [N]otices are essential.[224]

6.60 Mr Alan Giles, Chief Executive Officer of the AHA, stated in his evidence to the Committee that, if the Act were amended or repealed, the signage would need to be replaced in approximately 30,000 rooms, and that this would be an expensive process. The hotel industry would like any change to retain the use of the existing signage rather than create a new version of it.[225]

6.61 Mr Giles, also indicated that the signs required by the Act had been around for many years, not only in Australia but overseas. He continued:

Today, most people would expect to see them and would probably notice them not being there. The average traveller who consistently uses hotels would expect to see them as part of a normal hotel room.[226]

6.62 The RACV confirmed that the community was accustomed to notices on the reverse of doors in hotel rooms which limit a hotelkeeper’s liability for loss of or damage to a guest’s property.[227]

6.63 Mr Peter Gromotka, General Manager of the Hilton International Hotel in Melbourne, believed that the current notices created discipline in guests by highlighting the risk of leaving valuable goods lying around.[228]

6.64 The Committee is of the opinion that a notice is a useful tool for informing guests of hotels of their rights and obligations under the legislation, and that the limitation of liability in any new or amended legislation should be subject to the display of a notice annexed as a Schedule to that Act.

6.65 The Committee notes the concerns of hotel owners in relation to compliance costs as a result of changes to the Act. However, the Committee considers that, even if there were only minor amendments to the Act, such as the updating of the language of the Act which the hotel industry agrees is necessary, then the notice would require similar amendment. The notice, after all, reflects the outdated and uncertain language of the Act itself.

6.66 Further, the Committee notes that these notices have been in use since 1970 and does not consider it unreasonable that they be updated almost 30 years later. The Committee considers that the cost of replacing the notices will reflect the standing of the various establishments; a three room guesthouse will not, of course, be subject to the same costs of compliance as a 200 room, five-star hotel. Therefore, the Committee is of the view that the compliance costs will not impose an unreasonable burden on any operators.

No limitation of liability where innkeeper negligent

6.67 The liability of an innkeeper is not limited by the Act where the goods are lost or damaged through the default, neglect or wilful act of the innkeeper (or his or her servants).[229]

6.68 The AHA accepted that, where loss or damage to guests’ property was caused by the negligence of hoteliers and staff, that liability should be unlimited.[230] The submissions of other hotelkeepers did not address this issue.

6.69 Further, if the Act were amended to exclude liability for negligent acts, this may be inconsistent with State and Federal fair trading legislation, and any provision to that effect invalid.[231]

6.70 The Committee considers it appropriate that innkeepers and their servants remain liable for loss of or damage to a guest’s property, where the loss or damage was due to their negligent or intentional act or omission.

Exclusion of liability where traveller not a "guest"

6.71 The Act expressly provides that the innkeeper will not be liable for loss or damage to a guest’s property where the traveller is not a guest at the inn within the meaning of the Act.[232]

6.72 The Committee holds the view that it is appropriate that the innkeeper only be liable to guests at the hotel, and not to anybody who just happens to drop in at the hotel. However, as noted above, there are significant problems with the definition of "guest" which require attention.

No liability for vehicles

6.73 An innkeeper is not liable under the Act for loss of or damage to a vehicle or anything therein.[233]

6.74 The Committee recognises that this is a well-established exception to innkeeper’s liability, and considers it appropriate that an innkeeper escape liability for loss of or damage to a vehicle, except where caused by his or her negligent or intentional act.

ABOLITION OF INNKEEPER'S LIEN

6.75 The Act abolishes the innkeeper’s lien over a guest’s property.[234]

6.76 The Committee holds the view that the rights of guests and innkeepers should be clearly determined by legislation, rather than left to ancient common law concepts. The Committee believes that the exercise by an innkeeper of his or her lien over a guest’s property could lead to confrontations between guest and innkeeper, and aggravate any dispute. Therefore, the Committee supports the abolition of the innkeeper’s lien by statute.

RETENTION OF LEGISLATION

Need for legislation

6.77 As discussed in the preceding Chapter, the Committee holds the view that the common law is uncertain and inappropriate for application to modern dealings between innkeepers and their guests. Assuming, therefore, that some form of legislation is required, the Committee considered three options:

(a) retaining the current Act but with updated language and drafting;

(b) inserting the provisions in another piece of legislation, such as the Liquor Control Act 1987; or

(c) drafting an entirely new and separate Act.