Search Results

1. [2025] NZLCDT 31 Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Ms M (18 June 2025) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...misconduct in context in order to properly represent it to the profession and the public. At her request, Ms M read out a personal statement 1 Roll of barristers and solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand. 2 And protected by legislative privacy provisions in the Family Court Act. 3 describing her perspective, but more importantly the backdrop against which her actions had taken place. [6] In the end, we considered it was important for the background to be revea...

2. [2025] NZREADT 29 – KE v REA (28 July 2025) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...the High Court. 6 Kacem, above n 4, at [32]. 11 PUBLICATION [53] Having regard to the interests of the public in knowing of any professional wrongdoing of licensees and 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 property manager or any person. ___________________ C Sandelin Deputy Chairperson ___________________ G Denley...

3. [2025] NZIACDT 46 - LN v Rabuku (4 September 2025) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...[47] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.8 It must balance the public interest in knowing of wrongdoing by advisers and also of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of individuals. [48] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Ms Rabuku’s client or her husband. [49] The Tribunal directs publication of the decision, but orders that no information identifying the complainant or her...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 222 (Judgment (No 4) of Judge M S King 5 December 2023) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...on residential properties affected by the freezing orders were being made from that account. [18] Ms Anderson advised that STU’s proposal was not acceptable to FRD and that the proposal overreached, was punitive, was overly intrusive from a privacy 4 She relies on TDK Tape Distributor (UK) Ltd v Videochoice Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 141 where in the obiter Skinner J observed that a freezing order would encompass assets acquired after the date it was granted. perspective and...

5. [2025] NZIACDT 47 - Labour Insp.Gardiner v Jaspal (11 September 2025) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...[49] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.13 It must balance the public interest in knowing of wrongdoing by advisers and also of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of individuals. [50] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Mr Jaspal’s client or the employer or its director. [51] The Tribunal directs publication of the decision, but orders that no information identifying the c...

6. Ministry of Justice Annual Report 2023/24 [pdf, 5.6 MB]

   ...the day • ensure proposed legislation meets the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and advise the Attorney General whether Bills are consistent with the Act • monitor and support independent Crown entities, such as the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission to uphold human rights. We also monitor the following Crown entities to ensure they undertake their statutory functions, meet government expectations, and responsibly spend public funds: �...

7. [2024] NZEnvC 136 Donaldson v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 6.4 MB]

   ...Landscape context, where such views exist; including by: a. implementing road setback standards; and b. ensuring that earthworks and mounding, and vegetation planting within any road setback, particularly where these are for building mitigation and/or privacy, do not PART 4 WAKATIPU BASIN 24 Queenstown Lakes District Council - Proposed District Plan Decisions Version (Aug 2023) 24-3 detract from views to Outstanding Natural Features or Outstanding Natural Landscapes; while c....

8. Impact summary RIA Extended Control Orders [pdf, 369 KB]

   ...unnoticed or unreported. This option does not place conditions or limitations on an individual’s freedoms (e.g. non-association with particular people or restrictions on the use of technology), but surveillance is an intrusion into someone’s privacy, which has rights implications. Surveillance by enforcement officers is strictly regulated under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and only occurs when it is considered to be justifiable. In most circumstances a warrant issued by...

9. Lethbridge v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 403) & Fenton, Fenton v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 403) & Lethbridge [2018] NZREADT 58 [pdf, 506 KB]

   ...office to place on the information system. [53] The position was summarised by counsel for the Authority in the following terms: 6.14 Mr Fenton contends that the Committee erred in determining that Ms Lethbridge was not responsible for the privacy breach, which involved confidential information about his health issues being disclosed in the advertising for the Property. 6.15 The key issue here is whether Ms Lethbridge was under an obligation to check the listing before...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 113 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [pdf, 396 KB]

    ...that, for a higher amount of compensation to be awarded, the claimant would need to amend their pleadings.27 [73] I pause to note that a different approach has been adopted in the High Court in respect of awards for non-pecuniary loss under the Privacy Act 1993. In Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Holmes the Court rejected an argument on appeal that the Human Rights Review Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to order an amount in excess of that which had be...