Search Results

1. [2025] NZREADT 01 LQ v Registrar Substantive (9 January 2025) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [45] Having regard to the interests of the public in knowing of any professional wrongdoing of licensees and knowing also the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, balancing that against the privacy of the individuals involved, it is appropriate to order publication of the decision without naming the licensee, the agency or any person. ___________________ D J Plunkett Chair ___________________ G J Denley Member...

2. Wellington Standards Committee 1 v King [2024] NZLCDT 46 (18 December 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...Conveyancers Act 2006. 6 [29] The management of her diary was also flawed and Ms King acknowledged that she sometimes missed court dates for filing and needed to seek extensions of time. [30] In addition, there were concerns about privacy because her printing facilities were shared with another organisation, and she did not always ensure she collected printing as soon as it was completed, meaning that it was not protected from inadvertent disclosure. [31] Ms King ha...

3. [2025] NZIACDT 15 – ZJ v Liu (26 February 2025) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...(Ward) v Li [2025] NZIACDT 11. 9 XI v Liu [2025] NZIACDT 12 ($4,000) and HG v Liu [2025] NZIACDT 13 ($5,000). 10 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 50A. 10 wrongdoing by advisers and knowing the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of individuals. [43] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Mr Liu’s client. [44] The Tribunal orders that no information identifying the complainant is to be published other than to Immigration NZ. ________...

4. [2025] NZIACDT 18 – YI v Liu (27 February 2025) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...[43] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.11 It must balance the public’s interest in knowing of wrongdoing by advisers and knowing the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of individuals. [44] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Mr Liu’s client. [45] The Tribunal orders that no information identifying the complainant is to be published other than to Immigration NZ. _________...

5. [2025] NZIACDT 19 – DH v Liu (28 February 2025) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...[42] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.10 It must balance the public’s interest in knowing of wrongdoing by advisers and knowing the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of individuals. [43] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Mr Liu’s client. [44] The Tribunal orders that no information identifying the complainant is to be published other than to Immigration NZ. _________...

6. [2025] NZIACDT 16 – TX v Liu (26 February 2025) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...[42] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.10 It must balance the public’s interest in knowing of wrongdoing by advisers and knowing the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of individuals. [43] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Mr Liu’s client. [44] The Tribunal orders that no information identifying the complainant is to be published other than to Immigration NZ. _________...

7. [2025] NZIACDT 17 – IX v Liu (26 February 2025) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...[43] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.10 It must balance the public’s interest in knowing of wrongdoing by advisers and knowing the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of individuals. [44] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Mr Liu’s client. [45] The Tribunal orders that no information identifying the complainant is to be published other than to Immigration NZ. _________...

8. LCRO Guidelines for parties to review [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...reasonable (even though the decision of the Standards Committee may not have been changed) and the parties have acted appropriately, parties will generally be expected to bear their own costs incurred in being party to the review (see Costs Guidelines). Privacy 56. All hearings will be conducted in private as is required by section 206(1) of the Act. 57. All information provided to the LCRO by anyone who is a party to the review will be copied to the other party or parties unless the LC...

9. [2025] NZEmpC185 Lanigan v Fonterra Brands (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...other employees. [2] The Authority granted the declaration.3 It was satisfied that Fonterra had consulted with the union, E tū Inc, as required by the collective agreement, complied with the duty of good faith and satisfied Principle 1 of the Privacy Act 2020. [3] The Authority’s determination was challenged by Mr Lanigan (and the other first plaintiffs) seeking a full rehearing of the matter.4 E tū did not participate in the Authority investigation but subsequently has...

10. Judicial papers and speeches

    ...Christina Inglis. NZLS: The Jurisdictional Divide - Cross-Jurisdiction Enforcment of Monetary Claims August 2016, A paper prepared by Judge M Perkins. ADLSI seminar: Employment Litigation Costs August 2016, A paper prepared by Judge Christina Inglis. Privacy and Employment: Don't diss the boss on Facebook (and other useful homilies) June 2016, A paper prepared for guest lecture Auckland University Judge Christina Inglis. Swearing in as a Judge of the Employment Court of Judge K G Smith 29...

    Located in:

    1. Employment Court >
    2. About the Employment Court