Search Results

1. SK and RM v GJ LCRO 36/2015 (14 December 2016) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...reflect his wish to leave Mrs GJ an inheritance. 5 (d) Failed, in a statement provided to her on 4 April 2013, to correctly identify and account for the assets of his estate (including chattels or any other property). (e) Breached her privacy by discussing her enquiries concerning the estate with another person. (f) Failed to provide information concerning the administration of the estate. The lawyers’ response [32] In their letter responding to the complaint the law...

2. LCRO 152/2017 CS v GB (22 May 2018) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...practice”.24 [92] Concerning Mr GB’s conversation with Ms PH in the complex, Ms TC alleges that she “could hear and see” Ms PH and Mr GB “discussing the case in the public area [of the complex] … clearly not protecting [Mr CS’s] privacy”. Her concern is not what Mr GB disclosed to Ms PH, but whether their conversation could be overheard by someone else in the complex.25 She dismisses Mr GB’s statement that he and Ms PH “discussed nothing in the complex”. Sh...

3. AVS Operating Guidelines for District Courts [pdf, 817 KB]

   ...schedules, and confirm arrangements for them. In other locations, each instruction suite booking will be made through Ministry of Justice in 15 minute blocks, from 8.30am to 4.15pm Monday to Friday. 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...

4. BORA Electoral Finance Bill [pdf, 444 KB]

   ...requirements as a means of promoting transparency and public trust in the electoral process. Here, the provision for anonymous donations to a limited, but significant, level appears to strike an acceptable balance between the interest of donors in privacy and the public interest in transparency. 52. Third party directors are limited to $500,000. However, this can be seen to reflect the less central role of third parties. There is also the potential for donors to support more than one thi...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 83 Kaikorai Service Centre Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 904 KB]

   ...application into areas which, at least initially, are essentially private disputes. The end result of Julian is, perhaps, understandable for the reason identified by Mr Oldfield; the desirability of allowing parties some degree of confidence in the privacy of documents or communications created for the purposes of bargaining. It would be undesirable if parties in bargaining were incentivised to issue proceedings to gain an insight into the other party’s plans (there is no suggesti...

6. LCRO 124/2017 RG v XP (4 December 2018) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...Committee’s decision should not be published in a manner that identifies Mrs RG. It is said Mr XP breached the Committee’s confidentiality order by identifying Mrs RG as the subject of an adverse conduct finding in open Court. Mrs RG prefers privacy. [38] In addition to the materials that were before the Committee, Mrs RG filed affidavits from Ms AV and her client as well as an affidavit sworn by Mr XP on [date] August 2016 in support of his injunction application. [39] The...

7. [2020] NZEmpC 60 Noble v Ballooning Canterbury.com Ltd [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...claim. This involves a rule of procedure, the regulation of which is of course a matter for the Court. [48] There may be occasions where a party’s address cannot legitimately be disclosed in an intitulment, for instance where there are justified privacy reasons for such a course, and the Court approves the use of non-publication or other protective orders. [49] Where a practitioner acting for an overseas client in circumstances such as the present does not take such a step,...

8. UC v YW LCRO 165/2013 (30 November 2016) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...cumulatively the fact that there are nine pieces of what can be described as scurrilous communications, aggravates those individual instances. We find misconduct established, as defined in s 7(1)(a)(i). [84] I do not agree with the Committee that the privacy of the complaints process provides adequate defence to complaint that Mr YW breached his professional obligations in responding to the complaint in the manner he did. [85] In my view Mr YW’s comments, referred to by me at [74]...

9. ZA v YB LCRO 164/2013 (31 August 2016) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...also overlooks the likelihood that Mr [YB]’s file may have contained materials neither Ms [RI] or Mr [PK] was entitled to uplift. 6 This rule does not limit any legal rights that a client may have to copies of documents, for example under the Privacy Act 1993. 7 Wentworth v De Montfort and Others (1988) 15 NSWLR 348. 15 [62] There is no reason to infer anything sinister from Mr [YB] wanting to personally oversee the release of the file. While file uplifts can sometimes be safel...

10. LCRO 189/2019 RT v AC (30 November 2020) [pdf, 248 KB]

    ...undertaking to the ANZ to pay the sum of $750,000 to the bank from the proceeds of sale. They complain that instead, Mr RT sent the bank the undertaking he had provided to the purchaser’s solicitor and that this amounted to a breach of their privacy. It is difficult to accept that by sending this letter to the bank, the bank was being informed of anything it did not already know. To obtain the loan from the bank, the ACs themselves would have needed to advise the bank that the...