Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court quashes a decision to refuse a general employment permit for a tattoo artist, finding that the reviewing officer failed to exercise appropriate discretion and did not engage with the applicant's submissions. The original refusal, based on the classification of the occupation under an ineligible category according to the Standard Occupational Classification system, was deemed to have been treated as binding and determinative, without proper discretionary judgment. The matter has been remitted for reconsideration by a different officer.
Judicial review - employment permit - tattoo artist - discretion - Employment Permits Act 2006 - Employment Permits Regulations 2017 - SOC 2010 - ineligible occupations - certiorari - administrative discretion - review officer - High Court - Republic of Korea - general employment permit - refusal - Rodriguez v The Minister for Business Enterprises and Innovation - beauticians and related occupations - Schedule 4 - discretionary judgment - remittal.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.