Moore v Commissioner for Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAD 80

Moore v Commissioner for Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAD 80

Although the Applicant's most recent conviction was several years old and the Tribunal accepted that the conduct did not demonstrate dishonesty and that he had the ability to work as a tattooist, his criminal history showed disregard for the law and his continued tattooing after notification of refusal and after the stay discussions demonstrated a lack of knowledge of, or continuing disregard for, the duties and responsibilities imposed by the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012. The Tribunal was not satisfied that he would comply with those duties and responsibilities if licensed, so he was not shown to be a fit and proper person and the refusal was affirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Determination to Refuse an Application for a Tattooist Licence / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['tattooist Licence' 'adverse Security Determination' 'fit and Proper Person' 'criminal History' 'unlicensed Tattooing' 'tribunal Review']
['administrative Law' 'licensing' 'tattoo Parlours Regulation'] ['tattooist Licence' 'adverse Security Determination' 'fit and Proper Person' 'criminal History' 'unlicensed Tattooing' 'tribunal Review']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of a Determination to Refuse an Application for a Tattooist Licence / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist licence.' "Whether the Applicant's criminal history and conduct after refusal of the licence application showed disregard for the law relevant to the licensing regime." "Whether the Tribunal should affirm the refusal despite the Applicant's evidence of rehabilitation and absence of outlaw motorcycle gang involvement."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Applicant's most recent conviction was several years old and the Tribunal accepted that the conduct did not demonstrate dishonesty and that he had the ability to work as a tattooist, his criminal history showed disregard for the law and his continued tattooing after notification of refusal and after the stay discussions demonstrated a lack of knowledge of, or continuing disregard for, the duties and responsibilities imposed by the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012. The Tribunal was not satisfied that he would comply with those duties and responsibilities if licensed, so he was not shown to be a fit and proper person and the refusal was affirmed.

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed.']