Search Results

1. Glamorgan v Dalbeattie LCRO 220 / 2010 (10 May 2010) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...protection to the public including consumers of legal and conveyancing services; b. the extent to which publication will enhance public confidence in the provision of legal and conveyancing services; c. the impact of publication on the interests and privacy of the complainant the practitioner or any other person; d. the seriousness of any professional breaches; and e. whether the practitioner has previously been found to have breached professional standards. [34] At the rev...

2. BORA Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...reasons: 39.1 The provisions in issue concern activity in relation to border control and border enforcement, where some degree of routine inspection is common. The analysis of s. 21 NZBORA is to a large extent informed by reasonable expectations of privacy. In general Customs activities are premised on a significantly lower expectation in border transactions than in a wholly internal situation. Further, the state’s interests in preserving the integrity of the border are substantial....

3. BORA Customs And Excise Amendment Bill [pdf, 419 KB]

   ...maximising the limited resources available and ensuring that agencies work together towards the government’s border outcomes rather than focusing on limited classes of border activity. We consider, however, that despite the fact that expectations of privacy are lower in the context of border control, there should still be appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is respected. Such safeguards exist in connection with new s...

4. LS v TD LCRO 298/2012 Penalty decision (23 February 2015) [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...Conveyancers Act and the overriding requirement is that publication must be in the public interest. [51] In the Publication Guidelines issued by this Office, other factors to be taken into account are the impact of publication on the interests and privacy of the complainant, the practitioner and any other person; the seriousness of the breach; and whether the practitioner has previously been found to have breached professional standards. [52] Mrs LS has specifically requested her na...

5. FH v GJ LCRO 87/2014 (7 Aug 2015) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...Allegations should not be made against persons not involved in the proceeding unless they are necessary to the conduct of the litigation and reasonable steps are taken to ensure the accuracy of the allegations and, where appropriate, the protection of the privacy of those persons. [28] Rule 13.8 makes it very clear the allegation of the tort of deceit against Mr GJ should not have been made unless Ms FH had taken appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable grounds existed for makin...

6. Regulatory Impact Statement: Unilateral cancellation of voluntary time payment arrangements for unpaid fines [pdf, 390 KB]

   ...Affairs, Land Information New Zealand, the Ministries of Business, Innovation, and Employment, Health, Pacific Island Affairs, Social Development, Transport, New Zealand Customs, New Zealand Police, New Zealand Transport Agency, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Real Estate Agents Authority, the State Services Commission and Te Puni Kōkiri. 53. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, The Treasury and the Parliamentary Counsel Office were informed. 54. Heads of Bench,...

7. Mihaka v Housing New Zealand Corporation (Recusal Application) [2017] NZHRRT 7 [pdf, 227 KB]

   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

8. Auckland Standards Committee v Sorensen [2011] NZLCDT 10 [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...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...

9. Najib v CAC 403 & Lindsay [2016] NZREADT 51 [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...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...

10. BORA Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill [pdf, 425 KB]

    ...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...