Search Results

1. Family Court Rewrite Submission FV Death Review Committee [pdf, 316 KB]

   ...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...

2. AVL operating guidelines for senior courts [pdf, 684 KB]

   ...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...

3. 2020 NZEnvC 142 Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited [pdf, 16 MB]

   ...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...

4. Proactive release – Amendments to the District Court Rules 2014, High Court Rules 2016, Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001, Supreme Court Rules 2004, and Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...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...

5. KBN v Wharekura [2019] NZIACDT 80 (9 December 2019) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...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...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 113 Waitoa v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...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...

7. [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...

8. [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....

9. 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...

10. 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,...