Stiles v Commissioner for Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATOD 170

Stiles v Commissioner for Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATOD 170

The Tribunal found that, while the applicant's honesty was not in doubt regarding undisclosed former names, her lack of experience and knowledge in the tattoo industry, the indirect links between her, her daughter, and Mr Institoris (a person previously refused for similar reasons), and the risks of undue influence or improper conduct, established that granting a licence would be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the refusal was affirmed.

Parties
Applicant: Gleness Stiles; First Respondent: Commissioner for Fair Trading; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Occupational Licensing / Merits Review of Refusal of Licence
Outcome
Affirmed
Legal Topics
Fit and Proper Person, Public Interest, Close Associate, Tattoo Parlours Act 2012, Security Risk Assessment
Administrative Law Occupational Licensing Fit and Proper Person Public Interest Close Associate Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 Security Risk 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gleness Stiles

Applicant

Commissioner for Fair Trading

First Respondent

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Occupational Licensing / Merits Review of Refusal of Licence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist operator's licence
  2. 2 Whether it would be contrary to the public interest to grant the applicant a licence
  3. 3 Whether the applicant or business is associated with disqualifying persons under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, while the applicant's honesty was not in doubt regarding undisclosed former names, her lack of experience and knowledge in the tattoo industry, the indirect links between her, her daughter, and Mr Institoris (a person previously refused for similar reasons), and the risks of undue influence or improper conduct, established that granting a licence would be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the refusal was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Affirmed

Orders

  • The decision to refuse the licence application is affirmed.