Jones v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATOD 205

Jones v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATOD 205

The applicant was not presently a fit and proper person to be granted an operator licence because his adult criminal history, recent drug-related conduct, driving record, operation of a tattoo parlour without an operator licence, tattooing after refusal, permitting an unlicensed person to tattoo, and other disregard for regulatory requirements demonstrated insufficient regard for the law and for the tattoo licensing regime. Granting the licence would also be contrary to the public interest because it would risk public confidence in a licensing regime for an industry susceptible to criminal influence. Conditions were not shown to be capable of addressing those concerns, so the refusal...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Tattoo Parlour Operator Licence / Review of Decision Refusing Operator Licence
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['tattoo Parlour Operator Licence' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'adverse Security Determination' 'criminal History' 'licensing Compliance']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Licensing'] ['tattoo Parlour Operator Licence' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'adverse Security Determination' 'criminal History' 'licensing Compliance']

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 of Tattoo Parlour Operator Licence / Review of Decision Refusing Operator Licence

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 (NSW).' 'Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the applicant to be granted an operator licence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not presently a fit and proper person to be granted an operator licence because his adult criminal history, recent drug-related conduct, driving record, operation of a tattoo parlour without an operator licence, tattooing after refusal, permitting an unlicensed person to tattoo, and other disregard for regulatory requirements demonstrated insufficient regard for the law and for the tattoo licensing regime. Granting the licence would also be contrary to the public interest because it would risk public confidence in a licensing regime for an industry susceptible to criminal influence. Conditions were not shown to be capable of addressing those concerns, so the refusal...

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed.']