Search Results

1. Supplementary Government Response to Law Commissions report [pdf, 479 KB]

   ...added to the grounds in section 41(1) on which an agency may extend the time limit for responding to a request. Not having enough time to carry out due process, including checks and balances, can be a contributing factor in privacy breaches. A consequential amendment should be made to section 15A of the Official Information Act. 32 Principle 12(2) should be redrafted so that the meaning of “assign” is clearer. Principle 12 relates to the use of unique identifiers Minor and tec...

2. 2021-07-07 ORC - Closing Submissions [pdf, 422 KB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE ENV-2020-CHC-127 UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) IN THE MATTER of the Water Permits Plan Change - Plan Change 7, being part of a proposal of national significance directed by the Minister for the Environment to be referred to the Environment Court under section 142(2)(b) of the RMA AND IN THE MATTER of an application under section 149T of the RMA BET

3. AN v DH LCRO 119/2015 (23 December 2015) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...conduct decision, the Family Court’s comments that Ms AN’s “behaviour was out of character” and that the Court viewed “Ms AN’s withdrawal from the lawyer for Child panel as an unfortunate outcome”. [43] The Committee then focused on the consumer protection purposes of the Act saying: 8. Consumers of legal services need to be protected from behaviour which does not meet a lawyer’s professional obligations. Given there is an overriding professional duty to the court, th...

4. Ashworth v Kent (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 55 [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...Kent. On 2 July 2018 Ms Ashworth commenced the present proceedings following a report by the Health and Disability Commissioner published on 9 March 2018 in which the Commissioner found Dr Kent had breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (the Code) in respect of Ms Ashworth. [2] By application filed on 25 July 2018 Dr Kent and Fendalton Eye Clinic Ltd (Fendalton Eye Clinic) seek orders dismissing (or in the alternative striking out) Ms Ashworth’s claim...

5. HR v OW & CT LCRO 79/2014 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...responsible for the lawyer’s conduct; that is their concern. Putting the financial costs to one side for a moment, it is clear from Mr 6 HR’s evidence that the lawyers’ conduct in this matter has caused him significant inconvenience. The consequential orders made under s 156 should address the unsatisfactory nature of the conduct. Apology [25] The combination of s 156(1)(c) and s 211(1)(b) enables a LCRO to order a lawyer to address his or her unsatisfactory conduct...

6. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v O'Connor [2023] NZLCDT 21 (17 May 2023) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...appellant who is prevented from earning his or her livelihood but points out that Parliament must have been well aware of such an outcome:8 It clearly chose to introduce a regime designed to ensure that the community was protected notwithstanding the consequential hardship for an appellant and his or her clients. [32] Mr Hart’s application was dismissed. A discussion of relevant factors [33] While accepting that Mr O’Connor’s clients, including his current pro bono clien...

7. Appendix One to Cabinet Paper Reforming the Privacy Act 1993 [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...it is timely to issue a code of practice or guidance covering Transferred to the Privacy biometrics Commissioner for consideration. 116 The Marketing Association’s Do Not Call register should be put on a statutory footing under the reformed consumer legislation and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs should initiate the necessary policy work to progress this initiative This recommendation was considered by Cabinet in the context of the Consumer Law Reform Bill (EGI Min (12) 16/5)....

8. LCRO 57/2014 IW v PP [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...while also explicitly stating that fees would not exceed a certain figure. [57] The Committee concluded that the wording was "at best, unclear and inconsistent" and that in those circumstances “a lawyer should err in favour of the consumer’s, his client’s, view”.5 Mr IW’s conduct [58] As a preliminary issue, the Committee dealt with the issue of whether or not a complaint had been made about Mr IW, having regard to Mr PP’s statement that “he did not wish t...

9. Pio v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 142 [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...Corporation’s position is that the relevant date of injury was 21 March 2014 when bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was first diagnosed and was caused by Mr Pio’s working in a mussel factory. The laceration of the nerve was a treatment injury consequential on the covered injury caused by the accident on 21 March 2014. The first operation was on 20 November 2015, which was the date of the injury by laceration to the palmar cutaneous branch of the left median nerve (the treatment...

10. Domb v REAA Registrar [2014] NZREADT 5 [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...applicant and for other real estate agents. [5] It is put by Mr Clancy that this case concerns the Registrar’s ability to make properly informed decisions about the fitness and propriety of an applicant for a licence, and that this is no less than consumers and industry members would reasonably expect. [6] Mr Clancy submits that the Registrar has not sought consent to disclosure of information beyond the scope of that which is permitted under the statutory scheme; that the stat...