Dyas v Director-General, Fair Trading & Commissioner Of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 223

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dyas v Director-General, Fair Trading & Commissioner Of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 223 Hearing dates: 23 September 2014 Decision date: 17 December 2014 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: 1. The decision under review is set aside. 2. In its place the decision is made that the licence is granted. Catchwords: tattoo licence - licence application - fit and proper person - public interest Legislation Cited: Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 Tattoo Parlours Regulation 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Smith v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force & NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184 Zahra v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force & NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 211 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Owen Dyas (Applicant) NSW Fair Trading (First Respondent) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Second Respondent) Representation: J Gruzman (Applicant) R Bhalla (Second Respondent) L Clarke, Solicitor (Applicant) Crown Solicitors Office (First and Second Respondents) File Number(s): 1410292 Publication restriction: Section 64 of the Civil And Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the material filed by the Commissioner on a confidential basis. That material is not to be released to either the Applicant or to the public

reasons for decision 1This is an application for review of a determination to refuse the Applicant's application for a tattooist licence. The decision to refuse the licence application was taken by the Director-General of Fair Trading ("the Director-General") under section 16 (1) of the Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 ("the Act"). The Commissioner of Police ("the Commissioner") made an adverse security determination under section 19(2) of the Act, to the effect that it would be contrary to the public interest for the Applicant to be granted a licence and that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence sought. Pursuant to section 27(3) of the Act, the Commissioner is a party to these proceedings.