Roberts v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 218

Roberts v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 218

The Applicant's history of offending, including serious domestic violence related conduct, offences committed while performing tattooing procedures, habitual disregard for the law, lack of acceptance of responsibility and lack of evidence of steps to address anger and violence meant the Tribunal was not satisfied he was a fit and proper person to be granted the licence. For the same reasons, and because of the public interest in excluding criminal elements from the tattooing industry and maintaining confidence in the licensing scheme, the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the refusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal to Grant a Tattoo Operator Licence Under the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 / Review of Decision Refusing Operator Licence Following Adverse Security Determination
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['tattoo Operator Licence' 'adverse Security Determination' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'criminal History']
['administrative Law' 'licensing and Regulation'] ['tattoo Operator Licence' 'adverse Security Determination' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'criminal History']

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 a Tattoo Operator Licence Under the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 / Review of Decision Refusing Operator Licence Following Adverse Security Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the tattoo operator licence sought.' 'Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the Applicant to be granted the licence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's history of offending, including serious domestic violence related conduct, offences committed while performing tattooing procedures, habitual disregard for the law, lack of acceptance of responsibility and lack of evidence of steps to address anger and violence meant the Tribunal was not satisfied he was a fit and proper person to be granted the licence. For the same reasons, and because of the public interest in excluding criminal elements from the tattooing industry and maintaining confidence in the licensing scheme, the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the refusal.

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed']