Stevens v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 213

Stevens v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 213

Upon considering all the evidence, including confidential material, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not candid and that the confidential evidence established he is not a fit and proper person nor is it in the public interest for him to be granted an operator licence under the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Merits Review – Decision Affirmed
Outcome
Decision under review affirmed
Legal Topics
['tattoo Parlours' 'operator Licence' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'adverse Security Determination']
['administrative Law'] ['tattoo Parlours' 'operator Licence' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'adverse Security Determination']

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 / Merits Review – Decision Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted an operator licence under the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012' 'Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the applicant to be granted the licence']

Ratio Decidendi

Upon considering all the evidence, including confidential material, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not candid and that the confidential evidence established he is not a fit and proper person nor is it in the public interest for him to be granted an operator licence under the Act.

Court Disposition

Decision under review affirmed

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed']