Hallman v Commissioner for Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 136

Hallman v Commissioner for Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 136

Mr Hallman is not a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist licence due to his demonstrated disregard for the law, continuing breaches of statutory requirements after refusal, and ongoing association with unlicensed premises; thus, granting the licence would not be in the public interest.

Parties
Applicant: Brett Adam Hallman; First Respondent: Commissioner for Fair Trading; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Police
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Hearing and Final Determination
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
Tattoo Parlours Act 2012, Fit and Proper Person, Public Interest, Adverse Security Determination, Criminal Convictions
Administrative Law Occupational Licensing Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 Fit and Proper Person Public Interest Adverse Security Determination Criminal Convictions

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brett Adam Hallman

Applicant

Commissioner for Fair Trading

First Respondent

Commissioner of Police

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Hearing and Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hallman is a fit and proper person to be granted a tattooist licence
  2. 2 Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the licence to be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hallman is not a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist licence due to his demonstrated disregard for the law, continuing breaches of statutory requirements after refusal, and ongoing association with unlicensed premises; thus, granting the licence would not be in the public interest.

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

  • The decision under review is affirmed.