Wright v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 191

Wright v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATOD 191

Mr Wright is not presently a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist licence, nor is it in the public interest for him to be licensed, due to his criminal history, incomplete rehabilitation, ongoing conditional parole, and substance abuse concerns. Public confidence and safety require refusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Licence Application Review / Principal Judgment
Outcome
First Respondent's decision affirmed; licence refused
Legal Topics
['fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'tattoo Parlours Act' 'licence Refusal' 'criminal History Assessment']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Licensing'] ['fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'tattoo Parlours Act' 'licence Refusal' 'criminal History Assessment']

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

Licence Application Review / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Wright is a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist licence' 'Whether it is in the public interest for Mr Wright to be granted a tattooist licence']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Wright is not presently a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist licence, nor is it in the public interest for him to be licensed, due to his criminal history, incomplete rehabilitation, ongoing conditional parole, and substance abuse concerns. Public confidence and safety require refusal.

Court Disposition

First Respondent's decision affirmed; licence refused

Orders

  • ["The First Respondent's decision to refuse Mr Wright a tattoo licence is affirmed"]