Asencio v Department of Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATAD 136

Asencio v Department of Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATAD 136

The correct and preferable decision was to refuse the tattooist licence because the applicant's criminal history, recent drug-related incident, assault conviction, minimisation of that assault, inconsistent evidence, disqualifications under other licensing legislation and confidential evidence meant he had not established rehabilitation and was not a fit and proper person; for the same reasons, and because granting a licence would undermine public safety and confidence in the tattooist licensing scheme, granting the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant Tattooist Licence / Review Under S 27(1)(a) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 (nsw); Decision Affirmed
Outcome
Decision under review affirmed.
Legal Topics
['tattooist Licence' 'adverse Security Determination' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'criminal History' 'rehabilitation']
['administrative Law' 'licensing' 'public Safety Regulation'] ['tattooist Licence' 'adverse Security Determination' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'criminal History' 'rehabilitation']

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 Tattooist Licence / Review Under S 27(1)(a) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 (nsw); Decision Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted a tattooist licence.' 'Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for a tattooist licence to be granted to the applicant.' 'Whether the decision refusing the tattooist licence was the correct and preferable decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The correct and preferable decision was to refuse the tattooist licence because the applicant's criminal history, recent drug-related incident, assault conviction, minimisation of that assault, inconsistent evidence, disqualifications under other licensing legislation and confidential evidence meant he had not established rehabilitation and was not a fit and proper person; for the same reasons, and because granting a licence would undermine public safety and confidence in the tattooist licensing scheme, granting the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

Court Disposition

Decision under review affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed.' 'Pursuant to s 64(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the CAT Act, the recording and transcript of the confidential hearing on 18 June 2018, confidential exhibit CR4 and the paragraphs of these reasons marked "[Not for publication]" are not for publication or for disclosure to the...