Lu v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATAD 24

Lu v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATAD 24

Mr Lu was not found to be a fit and proper person to be granted a tattoo parlour operator's licence. He operated a tattoo parlour without a licence for a substantial period after his previous application was treated as withdrawn, either knowing or being required to know that he could not do so. He gave disingenuous and sometimes untruthful evidence, failed to declare close associates and staff as required, did not maintain proper records as mandated, breached health and safety requirements, and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance despite the language barrier. As such, neither the fit and proper person test nor the public interest test were satisfied.

Parties
Applicant: Yuhuai Lu; First Respondent: Commissioner for Fair Trading; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Decision
Outcome
Decision under review affirmed; application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Tattoo Parlours Licensing, Fit and Proper Person, Public Interest, Adverse Security Determination
Administrative Law Tattoo Parlours Licensing Fit and Proper Person Public Interest Adverse Security Determination

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuhuai Lu

Applicant

Commissioner for Fair Trading

First Respondent

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Lu is a fit and proper person to be granted a tattoo parlour operator's licence
  2. 2 Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for Mr Lu to be granted the licence

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Lu was not found to be a fit and proper person to be granted a tattoo parlour operator's licence. He operated a tattoo parlour without a licence for a substantial period after his previous application was treated as withdrawn, either knowing or being required to know that he could not do so. He gave disingenuous and sometimes untruthful evidence, failed to declare close associates and staff as required, did not maintain proper records as mandated, breached health and safety requirements, and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance despite the language barrier. As such, neither the fit and proper person test nor the public interest test were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Decision under review affirmed; application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The decision under review is affirmed.