The High Court has quashed a decision upholding the refusal of a South Korean tattoo artist’s application for a general employment permit, finding that the review process did not show the required exercise of judgment or discretion.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell ruled on 18 September 2024 that the decision must be reconsidered by a different officer of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. He did not decide whether tattoo artists are eligible for permits. He said that question would have to be considered on its own terms if it arose again.
The applicant sought a permit in February 2022 to take up a permanent tattoo artist position with Wildcat Ink Limited in Dublin. The Department refused the application, and a review officer upheld that refusal on 19 November 2022. The review decision said the role fell under SOC 6222, “Beauticians and Related Occupations”, which was on the ineligible occupations list, and that a permit could not be issued for that reason.
The applicant argued that the officer had treated the UK occupational classification as decisive instead of considering the substance of the job. She had submitted that tattooing differed from beauty work and should be considered under an artist classification. She also argued that the decision did not adequately address those submissions.
The Minister’s side said the SOC system was guidance rather than binding, and that the Department assessed each application individually. The judgment records those submissions, but the judge said evidence from a departmental official who had not made the review decision could not establish what the review officer actually considered unless that was apparent from the decision itself.
The judge found that the written reasons did not engage with the applicant’s challenge to the SOC 6222 classification. More fundamentally, the only substantial reason stated was that SOC 6222 appeared on the ineligible list. On the decision’s wording, the judge concluded that the classification had been treated as binding and determinative, despite the Minister’s position that it was only guidance.
The court made an order of certiorari quashing the 19 November 2022 review decision and remitted the matter to a different officer for reconsideration. The judge expressed a provisional view that the applicant should receive her costs, with the amount to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The case was listed for 10 October 2024 to address any arguments about the form of final orders.