NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Larter v Commissioner for Fair Trading; Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATOD 209 Hearing dates: 1 May 2019 Date of orders: 15 May 2019 Decision date: 15 May 2019 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: Emeritus Prof G D Walker, Senior Member Decision: (1) Decision under review set aside. (2) A tattooist licence is to be issued to the applicant. (3) The licence referred to in (2) is to be subject to a condition requiring total abstinence from all or any prohibited drugs. (4) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the contents of confidential exhibits CR 4 and CR 5 and of all paragraphs of these reasons marked "[Not for publication]", and the transcripts and records of the confidential hearing are not to be disclosed to the applicant. (5) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the CAT Act, the contents of confidential exhibits CR 4 and CR 5 and of all paragraphs of these reasons marked "[Not for publication]", and the transcripts and records of the confidential hearing are not to be published. Catchwords: LICENSING – tattoo parlours – application for tattooist licence – fit and proper person – record of drug convictions – public interest – weight of references – special conditions. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 (NSW). Cases Cited: Allen v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATAD 273; Avnell v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATAD 58; Austin v Commissioner for Fair Trading and Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179; Butler v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 138; Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657; Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9; Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16; Dessmann v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATAD 255; Director-General, Transport New South Wales v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] Vic Rep 6, (1991) 1 VR 63; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307; Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127; Lindroos v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 175; Moujalli v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWCATAD 141; Naziry v Director-General, Department of Transport [2004] NSWADT 40; O'Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61, (1989) 168 CLR 210; Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28, (1998) 194 CLR 355; Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184; Stiles v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAP 44; Wright v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 98. Category: Principal judgment Parties: James Larter (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading (First Respondent) Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: D Birch (respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate