Collins v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATAP 199

Collins v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATAP 199

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal did not impose an incorrect onus, did not breach procedural fairness, and that the finding of public interest risk based on the applicant’s OMCG history and ambiguous severance was open on the evidence. No error of law or merits warranting intervention was demonstrated. Leave to appeal on the merits was refused; the appeal on questions of law was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Brett Andrew Collins; First Respondent: Department of Fair Trading; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Questions of Law
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on merits refused
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Fit and Proper Person Test, Public Interest, Tattoo Parlours Act 2012, Review of Licensing Decisions, Onus of Proof in Tribunals
Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Fit and Proper Person Test Public Interest Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 Review of Licensing Decisions Onus of Proof in Tribunals

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brett Andrew Collins

Appellant

Department of Fair Trading

First Respondent

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tribunal erred in finding it was not in the public interest for the applicant to hold a tattoo operator licence
  2. 2 Whether Tribunal erred in finding applicant may be vulnerable to pressure to engage in or support an OMCG
  3. 3 Whether Tribunal erred in finding applicant had recent involvement in an OMCG

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal did not impose an incorrect onus, did not breach procedural fairness, and that the finding of public interest risk based on the applicant’s OMCG history and ambiguous severance was open on the evidence. No error of law or merits warranting intervention was demonstrated. Leave to appeal on the merits was refused; the appeal on questions of law was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on merits refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal on the merits is refused.
  • The appeal on the questions of law is dismissed.