"The plaintiff submitted that the whole of each of the areas constituted a single public place for the purpose of the calculations pursuant to cl 6 of the Regulations. In relation to the “outdoor gaming terrace” area it was submitted that there were five considerations which would lead to the conclusion that it was one place. Those matters were the existence of continuous walls along the covered and uncovered portions; the whole area has a significant uniformity of purpose, namely an area for drinking and playing gaming machines, the area is a single place with no internal obstacles or barriers to free movement; the whole area is a single designated place in which patrons may smoke while playing gaming machines or drinking and the whole terrace area would present to an objective observer as a single place. I do not accept this submission. Although the walls are continuous the area does not have a uniformity of purpose. The gaming facilities are confined to the covered area. The uncovered area could not be utilised for that purpose and could only be utilised as an outdoor area for socialising and related activities. In my judgment it does not present as a single place even though there are no internal barriers. It would be properly be described as a gaming room and an external terrace. In relation to the “TAB outdoor area” the plaintiffs made similar submissions. However, I am also of the opinion that the area is comprised of two places. The covered area is an area used for viewing races on television, playing gaming machines and other facilities and apparently for dancing. The uncovered area would no doubt be utilised for drinking and socialising. The total area would properly be described as a room providing TAB and related facilities and an external terrace. The Act provides that an “enclosed public place” is a public place having “a ceiling or roof and … is completely or substantially enclosed”. Accordingly, it was submitted by the State that only areas of a building with a ceiling or roof could be places which are “completely or substantially enclosed.” Areas without a roof could never be enclosed places. In my opinion this submission is correct and accords with the object of the Act. If the area in question is not covered by a roof the opportunity is available for smoke to disperse to the atmosphere. However, when the relevant place has a roof the smoke may only escape laterally and the extent of lateral openings becomes the critical issue affecting the healthiness of the premises."