Search Results

1. JK v OC LCRO 254/2013 (10 February 2015) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...when he knew those records were misleading. [16] The Committee noted that Mr JK had referred the allegations, or similar allegations made against Mr OC to the Complaints Service and to a number of agencies including: • The Police; • The Privacy Commissioner; • The Ombudsman; • The Solicitor-General; • The Commissioner of Police; and • The Independent Police Conduct Authority. [17] The Committee enquiring into the third set of complaints noted that Mr JK had bee...

2. LG v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 23 (03 April 2013) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...Schaaf was threatening to send a “bounty debt collector to intimidate [Mr Hakaoro] into paying back his professional fee”. [28.7] The Authority accepted the complaint without legal authority. [28.8] Mr Greening and Ms Schaaf were in breach of the Privacy Act. [28.9] Ms Schaaf was not instructed by the complainant as she was in custody; it appears Mr Ka’s implication is that Ms Schaaf invented the instructions. [28.10] Mr Greening is dishonest, as he fabricated that the complaina...

3. NZLS 19 Mar 2013 Giving Evidence [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...could include concern about any risks you feel you run by appearing as a witness. If you feel you need protection from a defendant or their associates, talk to the police. You can talk to the Court Victim Adviser about arrangements for your comfort, privacy and security at court. Remember, by acting as a witness in a criminal case, you are helping ensure a person is given a fair trial. In a civil case, you are helping ensure that the evidence of both sides is heard. As a witness, you do...

4. Anderson v Anderson – Estate of Barlow Nathaniel Hahona Anderson (2018) 185 Waiariki MB 287 (185 WAR 287) [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...minutes of trustee meetings, copies of accounts invoices and receipts, correspondence, contracts, leases, licences and related agreements. The proviso being that the trustees can only do so where they are not breaching any relevant law in terms of privacy, employment or where issues of commercial sensitivity might arise. Issues of access, availability, time for copying and costs may also arise. In short, the beneficiaries are entitled to receive a wide array of information concerni...

5. ENV-2016-AKL-000197 Adams v Auckland Council [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...is both unnecessary and expensive for property owners. Furthermore, if resource consent is required for three or more dwellings per site, property owners will encounter issues with the criteria for amenity attributes (safety, daylight, sunlight, privacy, functionality and visual amenity) which are ill-defined, and open to interpretation and misuse by Council officers. In my view, Council's alternative solution is both unworkable and subjective, and will result in additional, un...

6. [2017] NZEnvC 183 Doctors Flat Vineyard Ltd Rubicon Hall Road Ltd v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...compromising the landscape and amenity values of prominent hillsides and terraces. [38] Policy 4.4.8 is also relevant which is "to ensure that the effects associated with some activities do not significantly adversely affect the amenity values and privacy of neighbouring properties or the safe and efficient operation of the roading network". 10 [39] "Amenity values" means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to pe...

7. Eggo v Tupene - Opape No 1A No 1B (2017) 169 Waiariki MB 45 (169 WAR 45) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...to rights which require assistance, for example, from a solicitor, the trustee is not bound to incur the costs of this unless the beneficiary is willing to pay the reasonable costs of complying. (i) Where serious issues of confidentiality or privacy arise, the withholding of documents may be justified. (j) In exceptional cases the Courts have jurisdiction to exercise their supervisory power in favour of an applicant who has yet to be determined to be a beneficiary.” (pp 545-...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Hong [2020] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...guidance to Farrington v Rowe McBride & Partners [1985] 1 NZLR 83 (CA) and Clark Boyce v Mouat [1993] 3 NZLR 641 (PC). (2) In taking the steps under paragraph 1(i) of this rule practitioners should note the duties under Rule 1.08 and under the Privacy Act 1993. (3) Practitioners are referred to Re A; High Court Auckland, AP59 – SW01; 19.12.01; Fisher, Williams, Harrison JJ, in which the full court held (at paragraph 43) that a conflict of interest arises in any situation where the...

9. [2023] NZREADT 16 - CAC 1901 v KC (3 July 2023) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...penalty orders, left open by the previous panel of the Tribunal. [90] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [91] Having regard to the privacy of the parties, as well as the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision without naming the purchasers, the defendant or the agency.16 _______________...

10. LCRO 52/2022 AD v OC (12 July 2024) [pdf, 244 KB]

    ...such publication of his or her decision as the Review Officer considers necessary or desirable in the public interest. “Public interest” engages issues such as consumer protection, public confidence in legal services and the interests and privacy of individuals. [81] Having had regard to the issues raised by this review, I have concluded that it is desirable in the public interest that this decision be published in a form that does not identify the parties or others involved in...