Perram v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2018] NSWSC 2038

Perram v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2018] NSWSC 2038

The application for a stay was refused because there was no judicial review application before the Court, no NCAT review application or NCAT stay application had been lodged, the statutory regime provided a specific avenue for merit review and stay relief in NCAT, and there was insufficient evidence that NCAT could not urgently determine a stay application before the licence expired. These matters raised a real question about the Court's power and, in any event, serious discretionary reasons against granting urgent interlocutory relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Urgent Interlocutory Relief to Stay Refusal of an Operator Licence Under the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 (nsw) / Summons Filed 30 July 2018; Ex Tempore Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
The first prayer for relief seeking a stay was refused; to that extent the summons was dismissed but not otherwise. The second prayer for relief was not pressed. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first and second defendants' costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['urgent Interlocutory Relief' 'stay of Administrative Decision' 'tattoo Parlour Operator Licence' 'ncat Merit Review' 'adverse Security Determination' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'licensing and Regulation'] ['urgent Interlocutory Relief' 'stay of Administrative Decision' 'tattoo Parlour Operator Licence' 'ncat Merit Review' 'adverse Security Determination' 'costs']

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 Urgent Interlocutory Relief to Stay Refusal of an Operator Licence Under the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 (nsw) / Summons Filed 30 July 2018; Ex Tempore Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Supreme Court should grant a stay of the Commissioner for Fair Trading's decision refusing to grant the plaintiff an operator licence under the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 (NSW)." 'Whether relief should be refused where no judicial review proceeding or NCAT review application had been commenced and NCAT had statutory power to grant a stay.' 'Whether the Court had power to grant a temporary operator licence under the Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was refused because there was no judicial review application before the Court, no NCAT review application or NCAT stay application had been lodged, the statutory regime provided a specific avenue for merit review and stay relief in NCAT, and there was insufficient evidence that NCAT could not urgently determine a stay application before the licence expired. These matters raised a real question about the Court's power and, in any event, serious discretionary reasons against granting urgent interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

The first prayer for relief seeking a stay was refused; to that extent the summons was dismissed but not otherwise. The second prayer for relief was not pressed. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first and second defendants' costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The prayer for relief in para 1 of the summons filed by the plaintiff on 30 July 2018 is refused.' 'To that extent, the summons is dismissed but not otherwise.' 'The second prayer for relief was not pressed.' "The plaintiff, Francis Shane Perram, is to pay the costs of the first and second defendants of today's...