2939 items matching your search terms
1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2017] NZHRRT 7 Reference No. HRRT 076/2015 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN TE RINGA MANGU NATHAN MIHAKA PLAINTIFF AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION DEFENDANT AT WELLINGTON – ON THE PAPERS BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms DL Hart, Member Hon KL Shirley, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr TRMN Mihaka in person assisted by Ms K Raue as McKenzie friend Ms FJ
...49. Mr Sorensen was granted interim suppression regarding publication of his name and details of the charges brought. That suppression, which was granted on the basis that the public’s right to know was outweighed by Mr Sorensen’s right to privacy in circumstances where, if the charges were not substantiated, Mr Sorensen’s reputation would suffer unduly, is now to lapse, effective 2pm on 6th May 2011. 50. Crown costs under S.257 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 are noted a...
...produced at a hearing, and the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person. The power may be exercised if the Tribunal considers it proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including the privacy of the complainant) and the public interest. [21] In its decision in Complaints Assessment Committee v Z the Tribunal held that the Tribunal’s power under s 108 must be read as being subject to ss 64 to 66, such that if the Tribuna...
...to the effect that it reserves the right to award compensation to victims of torture only at the Attorney-General’s discretion. 11. Note however that the Bill of Rights Act does not protect a right to an effective remedy for interferences with privacy or tortious conduct which is not also inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. 12. Wilding v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 787 (CA) at [14]ff; Dunlea v Attorney- General [2000] 3 NZLR 136 (CA); Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 11...
...confidentiality is not assured. Care needs to be taken in advocating such a move because it may lead to more systematic abuse for victims by one party maintaining some psychological control or oversight of the other party. Provisions under the Privacy Act currently exist for practitioners to disclose information if there are serious concerns about safety. FVDRC believes these provisions are enough, as there may well be unintended consequences if confidentiality were to be waived more b...
...of communication between counsel and prisoners at the remote location will be made possible with the AVL Instructions Suite. The suite is booked through the court and usually in 15 minute slots. The key requirement for these communications is privacy with both ends of the conversation being secure and private. As noted previously these communications are not recorded. Due to time restraints it will be expected that parties keep to the timeslot allocated as there will be no leeway...
...it contains information that bears on the issues before the court. I also accept the parties' advice that it contains information of a commercially sensitive nature. lnalco is a third party to these proceedings, and it is important that its privacy be protected. [16] I am satisfied that the redacted agreement should be made discoverable. In coming to this decision, I have given weight to the fact that EDS, GDC and lnalco have confirmed they consent to the terms of the orders so...
...with each of the following: 18.1. the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; 18.2. the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993; 18.3. the principles and guidelines set out in the Privacy Act 2020; 18.4. relevant international standards and obligations; and 18.5. the Legislation Guidelines (2018 edition), which are maintained by the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. Statutory requirements 19. Section 228...
...necessary to show a partnership, which he said had “no risk of being approved” (the Tribunal speculates as to whether Mr Wharekura meant no risk of not being approved). He expressed his understanding of their concern that it encroached on their privacy. [14] On 3 May 2019, Mr Wharekura had another meeting with the complainant and his partner. They advised they did not prefer an application based on their relationship. He explained that a skilled migrant category application...
...says that, rather than escalating matters, Mr Kuiti acted responsibly and thoughtfully throughout the three-hour period and involved other staff, including a qualified social worker, and whanau, leaving the room appropriately to allow Mrs Waitoa privacy in her engagements with these people. [53] MSD submits that it was fair and reasonable for Mrs Banaghan to conclude that the behaviour impacted on MSD’s trust and confidence in Mrs Waitoa, leaving Mrs Banaghan to say that she cou...