Search Results

1. IACDT - A Complainant's Guide to Proceedings [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...during the investigation of the complaint pursuant to section 47(3), the adviser will serve the Immigration Advisers Authority who will then pass the documents on to you. 8.2. Once your complaint has been referred to the Tribunal, you can raise any privacy concerns you may have by writing to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may agree to withhold your contact details from the adviser and agree to act as a conduit for service between you and the adviser. Where this occurs: 8.2.1. You will...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Deliu [2016] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...when he confirmed that he was to appear as Mr Orlov’s counsel; (b) After the 14 October 2008 meeting the practitioner wrote on 17 October to Ms Malcolm, the then Chief Executive of the ADLS: ….Would this raise in your mind a breach of the privacy rules or even natural justice as you disallowed Mr Orlov and his lawyer to attend?... (emphasis added) (c) On 5 December 2008 the practitioner wrote to Mr Shaw who had been appointed to investigate the complaint against Mr Orlov and...

3. OL v RY LCRO 261/14 (16 March 2016) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...Committee where it considers it necessary or desirable in the public interest to do so (s 142(2) of the Act). Reviews conducted by this Office under the Act must be conducted in private (s 206 of the Act). [55] There is therefore, a presumption of privacy in respect of both Standards Committee and LCRO proceedings. This is a legislative response to the move towards transparency referred to by Mr PP and is also in contrast to the directions in s 238 of the Act, that proceedings be...

4. Greyling v Gimranov [2016] NZIACDT 55 (15 September 2016) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...approach was predicated on Mr Gimranov agreeing to complete the course; [6.2] He said completing the whole course would be unreasonable, as he had excellent client references; [6.3] He claimed Mr Greyling could not see the client references due to privacy considerations; [6.4] He expected the refund of fees to be discounted due to the work he had performed; [6.5] He accepted a caution, but expected the Tribunal to discount the penalty due to the fact he was an employee. Mr Greyling...

5. Mark Brown (filed 6 June 2017) [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...under way very soon. 9. Blueskin Bay is a mixed community, socio-economically, politically and culturally. From my observation people move out here because they love the local environment, the beaches, open space, room to garden, peace and quiet, privacy, recreational opportunities and being part of a small inter-related, well-functioning and well-resourced community. 10. I have attached a list (Appendix 1) of local groups, events and organisations to demonstrate what an active, wel...

6. Napier v Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority [2019] NZREADT 7 (25 Feb 2019) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...[29] Ms Goatley went on to submit that there is no proper basis for any restriction on publication. She submitted that the subject matter leading to the proceedings before the Tribunal is largely in the public domain, such that there is no privacy interest which is sufficient to outweigh the starting point of open justice. [30] Finally, Ms Goatley submitted that it is not for the Tribunal to make orders on the basis of concerns as to what NZME might publish. She submitted tha...

7. Family Court rewrite submission: Save the Children [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rule of national law8. • Article 13: The child has the right to freedom of expression and to seek and receive accurate information. • Article 16: The child has the right to protection of their privacy. • Article 19: The child has the right to protection from all forms of harm. Personal story – as part of our submission we have included Frances’s Story, see Appendix One (p 8). This story shares...

8. Gravatt v Bulmer (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 81 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHRRT 40 Reference No. HRRT 004/2014 UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN GARY LANCE GRAVATT PLAINTIFF AND DAVID BULMER DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Mr GJ Cook JP, Member Mr BK Neeson, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr GL Gravatt in person Mr WG Manning for defendant DATE OF DECISION: 1 September 2014 D

9. [2016] NZEmpC 162 Broadspectrum v Nathan [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...seeking a declaration from the Authority about its ability to place Mr Nathan in another position. [33] Mr Cleary took issue with that submission. He pointed out the difficulties faced by Mr Nathan’s former lawyer in obtaining information in a Privacy Act request and the integrity of the investigation being compromised. [34] While noting Mr Cleary’s submission, I accept that the appeal is being pursued for bona fide reasons and is being pursued diligently. The effect o...

10. FINAL CE Gifts Benefits Expenses Disclosure Workbook 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 [xlsx, 2.7 MB]

    ...apply and therefore all items are disclosed, unless there is a very good reason not to. The Ombudsman’s view is that "because this expenditure is incurred by very senior employees acting in an official capacity and for a business purpose, the privacy interests of the chief executives who incurred the expenditure are low". Gifts and benefits All gifts, invitations to events and other hospitality, of $50 or more in total value per year, accepted or declined by the CE from people ext...