Lu v Commissioner for Fair Trading (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 221

Lu v Commissioner for Fair Trading (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 221

The applicant was not a fit and proper person to be granted a tattooist's licence because he operated a tattoo parlour for an extended period without a licence in wilful disregard of the legislation, gave untruthful evidence to the police and earlier tribunal, failed to comply with health regulations, and his explanations for these failings lacked credibility. Such conduct undermined the purpose of the licensing scheme intended to eliminate criminal or undesirable influence from the industry, and ongoing public confidence requires strict compliance. The public interest in the integrity of the industry outweighed the applicant's personal interests and skill as a tattooist.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Merits Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; decision under review affirmed.
Legal Topics
['tattooist Licensing' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'licence Refusal']
['administrative Law'] ['tattooist Licensing' 'fit and Proper Person' 'public Interest' 'licence Refusal']

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 / Final Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a tattooist's licence under the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 (NSW)" 'Whether granting the licence would be contrary to the public interest under the legislative scheme']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not a fit and proper person to be granted a tattooist's licence because he operated a tattoo parlour for an extended period without a licence in wilful disregard of the legislation, gave untruthful evidence to the police and earlier tribunal, failed to comply with health regulations, and his explanations for these failings lacked credibility. Such conduct undermined the purpose of the licensing scheme intended to eliminate criminal or undesirable influence from the industry, and ongoing public confidence requires strict compliance. The public interest in the integrity of the industry outweighed the applicant's personal interests and skill as a tattooist.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; decision under review affirmed.

Orders

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