Search Results

1. Apatu v Trustees of Owhaoko C Trust - Owhaoko C 1 and C 2 [2010] 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 34 (2010 APPEAL 34) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...as 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 545-546)...

2. Smith - Waiomu 3B2B2B3B2(2015) 105 Waikato Maniapoto MB 12 (105 WMN 5) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...frontage to either the Dehar area or the Beynon area. [23] At the site visit it became clear that the issues remaining to be resolved were the following: a) Noise pollution concerns from increased traffic as development proceeds on B2; b) Privacy concerns; c) Reducing speed of drivers as they enter the access way; d) Maintenance of the access way; e) Improving storm water drainage issues from water run-off from the existing developments on B2; 105 Waikato Maniapoto MB 18...

3. New Zealand Law Society v Faleauto [2009] NZLCDT 19 [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...for payments with some unusual claims made to the A family in H (variously, the danger of public officials, cheating by the state and police, the risk of defence lawyers being replaced by other lawyers the state or police could influence, lack of privacy from the government, higher chance of conviction when on legal aid, and the need to disclose defence case to government to get funding). This behaviour is well below the professional standard required of a barrister and solicitor o...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. [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...

9. 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...

10. [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,...