Mielczarek v Commissioner of Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 5

Mielczarek v Commissioner of Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 5

Aleksander Gustav Mielczarek was a close associate when the applications and refusal decisions were made because he was acting in a managerial role in the businesses, but he later ceased to be a close associate after agreeing that the Applicant would take over the businesses and he would walk away. The Applicant's failure to disclose him was based on an incorrect understanding rather than deliberate dishonesty and did not show that she was not fit and proper. Although there were public interest risks arising from Sasha's past involvement, Rebels membership and public perception, those risks were not sufficient to prevent the Applicant from holding the licences. The correct and preferable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant Tattoo Parlour Operator Licences / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The decisions under review were set aside and the licences were granted.
Legal Topics
['operator Licence' 'adverse Security Determination' 'close Associate' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'outlaw Motorcycle Gangs']
['administrative Law' 'licensing' 'tattoo Parlour Regulation'] ['operator Licence' 'adverse Security Determination' 'close Associate' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'outlaw Motorcycle Gangs']

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

Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant Tattoo Parlour Operator Licences / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted the operator licences.' 'Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the licences to be granted.' 'Whether Aleksander Gustav Mielczarek was or remained a close associate of the Applicant for the purposes of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012.' "Whether the Applicant's failure to disclose Aleksander Gustav Mielczarek as a close associate should prevent her from holding the licences."]

Ratio Decidendi

Aleksander Gustav Mielczarek was a close associate when the applications and refusal decisions were made because he was acting in a managerial role in the businesses, but he later ceased to be a close associate after agreeing that the Applicant would take over the businesses and he would walk away. The Applicant's failure to disclose him was based on an incorrect understanding rather than deliberate dishonesty and did not show that she was not fit and proper. Although there were public interest risks arising from Sasha's past involvement, Rebels membership and public perception, those risks were not sufficient to prevent the Applicant from holding the licences. The correct and preferable...

Court Disposition

The decisions under review were set aside and the licences were granted.

Orders

  • ['The decisions under review are set aside.' 'The decision is made that the licences are granted.']