Stuart v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATAD 90

Stuart v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATAD 90

The applications to set aside both summonses were refused because the documents sought could materially assist in the determination of whether Mr Sidirourgos was a close associate of Ms Stuart for the purposes of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012, and were relevant to her fitness, propriety, and the public interest, with no oppression or vagueness established.

Parties
Applicant: Jane Stuart; First Respondent: Commissioner for Fair Trading; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Police; Respondent to Summons Issued by the Second Respondent and Applicant on the Application to Set Aside That Summons: Platinum Ink Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Summonses (procedural) in Relation to Licence Refusal Review / Interlocutory/procedural Determination on Objections to Summonses
Outcome
Applications to set aside both summonses refused.
Legal Topics
Summonses, Fit and Proper Person Test, Public Interest in Licensing, Oppression (procedural), Relevance of Evidence, Review of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Licensing Law Practice and Procedure Summonses Fit and Proper Person Test Public Interest in Licensing Oppression (procedural) Relevance of Evidence +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Stuart

Applicant

Commissioner for Fair Trading

First Respondent

Commissioner of Police

Second Respondent

Platinum Ink Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent to Summons Issued by the Second Respondent and Applicant on the Application to Set Aside That Summons

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Summonses (procedural) in Relation to Licence Refusal Review / Interlocutory/procedural Determination on Objections to Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to set aside summonses issued to Jane Stuart and Platinum Ink Australia Pty Ltd in the course of review proceedings concerning refusal of a tattoo parlour licence
  2. 2 Whether production of certain documents is oppressive, too wide, vague, or a form of 'fishing'
  3. 3 Whether there exists a legitimate forensic purpose for the summonses

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to set aside both summonses were refused because the documents sought could materially assist in the determination of whether Mr Sidirourgos was a close associate of Ms Stuart for the purposes of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012, and were relevant to her fitness, propriety, and the public interest, with no oppression or vagueness established.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside both summonses refused.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the summons issued to Platinum Ink Australia Pty Ltd issued 16 March 2018 is refused.
  • The application to set aside the summons issued to the applicant issued 26 March 2018 is refused.