Wade v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 149

Wade v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 149

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal of the operator licence and cancellation of the tattooist licence because, despite the Applicant's technical tattooing skills and absence of tattooing complaints, his criminal history, breach of an AVO, repeated driving offences and demonstrated lack of compliance with public safety regulatory schemes meant he was not shown to possess the moral integrity required of a tattoo parlour operator, and it was not in the public interest for him to hold either an operator licence or continue holding a tattooist licence. The Tribunal also took account of confidential material and public interest concerns connected with the statutory purpose of excluding criminal...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review of Determinations Refusing a Tattooist Operator Licence Application and Cancelling a Tattooist Licence / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Both decisions of the Respondent are affirmed.
Legal Topics
['adverse Security Determination' 'tattoo Parlour Licensing' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'confidential Criminal Intelligence' 'outlaw Motorcycle Gangs']
['administrative Law' 'licensing and Regulation'] ['adverse Security Determination' 'tattoo Parlour Licensing' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'confidential Criminal Intelligence' 'outlaw Motorcycle Gangs']

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 Administrative Review of Determinations Refusing a Tattooist Operator Licence Application and Cancelling a Tattooist Licence / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for Mr Wade to be granted a tattoo operator licence.' 'Whether Mr Wade is a fit and proper person to hold a tattoo operator licence.' 'Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for Mr Wade to continue to hold his tattooist licence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal of the operator licence and cancellation of the tattooist licence because, despite the Applicant's technical tattooing skills and absence of tattooing complaints, his criminal history, breach of an AVO, repeated driving offences and demonstrated lack of compliance with public safety regulatory schemes meant he was not shown to possess the moral integrity required of a tattoo parlour operator, and it was not in the public interest for him to hold either an operator licence or continue holding a tattooist licence. The Tribunal also took account of confidential material and public interest concerns connected with the statutory purpose of excluding criminal...

Court Disposition

Both decisions of the Respondent are affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decisions of the Chief Executive to refuse Mr Wade a tattoo operators licence and to cancel his tattooist licence are affirmed.']