Search Results

1. [2021] NZEnvC 078 Robins Road Queenstown 2013 Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...already been addressed” at the Council level [39] The appellants submit the grounds of appeal were far from simply asserting a “wrong decision” or being entirely generic. The grounds of appeal identified in particular: (a) visual amenity, privacy, dominance, shading and access to sunlight, and construction effects as being effects of concern; (b) issues with the Council level decision being inconsistent as to its stated application of the ODP and the PDP; (c) permitte...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 107 JKL v Stirling Andersen Ltd [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...[49] Further, the plaintiff’s concern about their mental health is also reasonable. I consider that there is a material risk that their mental health will decline if their name is published or if details which they perceive as violating their privacy are published. Although embarrassment alone is not sufficient as an adverse consequence, if it can be shown that this embarrassment and shame will lead to poor mental health outcomes, this can be sufficient as an adverse consequence....

3. TD v TC & PC [2021] NZDT 1628 (30 June 2021) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...complaints policy. They say that TD did not discuss the complaint with them initially and so did not understand the nature of the complaint properly, and that when they met with the Principal the door to his office was left open which was a breach of privacy. TD say that they dealt with the complaint properly and that the door to the office was left open because the Principal had not wanted to meet with TC and PC alone and wanted his PA to be a witness to the meeting. i. TC and PC say t...

4. KC v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury) [2022] NZACC 224 [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...personal) 2014 Work ADHB – without my consent individuals in my private life were contacted, which resulted in the below. At work, I was shouted at, bullied, sexually harassed, threatened and discriminated against in a big way. I went through privacy breaches and defamation. Personal home Grafton, Auckland – as a result of communication between individuals, I did not consent to, I was shouted at, pushed, bullied, sexual insulted/harassed, threatened, things were thrown at me,...

5. McCarthy v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2022] NZACC 213 [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...any diagnosis provided on file for the right wrist. As stated above, the completely redacted consultation 29 September 2021 potentially contains material evidence that could inform the opinions reached in this report. Redaction is usually for privacy reasons, and the claimant would need to provide consent to have that consultation unredacted in order for me to consider the information contained. 5 [14] On 1 February 2022, proceedings were held to review the IMU’s decision...

6. [2023] NZREADT 1 - CAC 1904 v Bright (16 January 2023) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. 9 See also Mr Bright’s “Comments/Responses to Complaint” dated 31 July 2019 (at [18]). 13 PUBLICATION [52] Having regard to the privacy of the complainant and the interests of the public, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision without identifying the complainant.10 ___________________ D J Plunkett Chair ___________________ G J Den...

7. Ron-Mansfield-further-submisisons-for-Mr-Tarrant.pdf [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...11 information between state actors and any inappropriate focuses of state actors. 4.11 Further, the way the Royal Commission undertook its investigation is important in reaching this view. The Royal Commission operated in relative privacy so that the material it received was untested and then kept secret (clause 10(2), (3) and (4).). Its approach cannot be seen as a rights-based enquiry, even into the matters it was required to investigate and report on, let alone on an...

8. [2023] NZIACDT 17 - NG v Murthy (24 May 2023) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...Ordered to refund to the complainant within one month the sum of $2,200. ORDER FOR SUPPRESSION [57] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.15 This involves balancing the privacy of individuals with the public interest in the transparency and accountability of judicial bodies. [58] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Ms Murthy’s client, the complainant, nor any details of Ms Murthy’s health...

9. [2024] NZIACDT 14 – SC v Murthy (23 April 2024) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...party by 29 May 2024. ORDER FOR SUPPRESSION [59] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.12 It must balance the public interest in knowing of the Tribunal’s work, with the privacy of the individuals involved. [60] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Ms Murthy’s client. [61] The Tribunal orders that no information identifying the complainant is to be published other than to Immigration NZ....

10. MW v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independance Allowance) [2022] NZACC 207 [pdf, 239 KB]

    ...entitlements arising from his covered injuries and ensuring he is in receipt of all entitlements to which he is entitled as provided under the accident compensation legislation. Suppression [59] I consider it is necessary and appropriate to protect the privacy of the appellant. This order, made under s 160(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, forbids publication of the name, address, occupation, or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. As a resu...