NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mumby v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2017] NSWCATAD 27 Hearing dates: 2 November 2016 Date of orders: 13 January 2017 Decision date: 13 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: K Ransome, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - tattoo parlours – tattoo operator licence - adverse security determination - fit and proper person - public interest Legislation Cited: Tattoo Parlours Act 2012 Cases Cited: Austin v Commissioner for Fair Trading & Commissioner of Police [2016] NSWCATAP 179 Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) (1955) 93 CLR 127 AJO v Director-General of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70 Smith v Commissioner of Police & Commissioner for Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184 Roberts v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2016] NSWCATAD 218 Lal v Director-General, Department of Transport [2001] NSWADT 74 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Aaron Wayne Mumby (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading (First Respondent) Commissioner of Police (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: I Fraser (First and Second Respondents)
Solicitors: Go To Court Lawyers (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (First and Second Respondents) File Number(s): 1610414
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