Hawes v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 30

Hawes v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 30

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant was associated with the Comancheros or any other OMCG to an extent making him not fit and proper, and was not satisfied that he had performed body art tattooing procedures for fee or reward in contravention of section 7(1) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012. Although his social media conduct was imprudent and his traffic record did him no credit, those matters did not establish unfitness, lack of propriety, or a public interest reason to refuse the licence. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to grant the tattooist licence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of Refusal of Application for a Tattooist Licence / Review of Decision Made Under Section 16 (1) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 Following an Adverse Security Determination Under Section 19(2)
Outcome
The refusal decision was set aside and the tattooist licence was granted.
Legal Topics
['tattooist Licence' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'adverse Security Determination' 'outlaw Motorcycle Gang Association' 'body Art Tattooing for Fee or Reward']
['administrative Law' 'licensing' 'tattoo Parlours Regulation'] ['tattooist Licence' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'adverse Security Determination' 'outlaw Motorcycle Gang Association' 'body Art Tattooing for Fee or Reward']

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 Administrative Review of Refusal of Application for a Tattooist Licence / Review of Decision Made Under Section 16 (1) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 Following an Adverse Security Determination Under Section 19(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted a tattooist licence.' 'Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the licence to be granted.' 'Whether the Applicant was associated with the Comanchero Outlaw Motorcycle Gang or any other OMCG.' 'Whether the Applicant demonstrated disregard for the licensing scheme by performing body art tattooing procedures for fee or reward without a tattooist licence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant was associated with the Comancheros or any other OMCG to an extent making him not fit and proper, and was not satisfied that he had performed body art tattooing procedures for fee or reward in contravention of section 7(1) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012. Although his social media conduct was imprudent and his traffic record did him no credit, those matters did not establish unfitness, lack of propriety, or a public interest reason to refuse the licence. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to grant the tattooist licence.

Court Disposition

The refusal decision was set aside and the tattooist licence was granted.

Orders

  • ["The decision to refuse the Applicant's application for a tattooist licence is set aside." 'The decision is made that the licence is granted']