Search Results

1. 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]...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 165 Culturesafe NZ Ltd v Turuki Healthcare Services Charitable Trust [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...that employment relationship problem. [56] Clauses containing non-disparagement and confidentiality obligations are a common feature in settlements of employment relationship problems. These are often necessary to maintain requirements as to privacy and to preserve future employment prospects and business normalcy as the parties move on from the dispute.18 They usually are seen as being in the interests of both parties to the problem. [57] Accordingly, where, as here, the term...

5. [2020] NZEmpC 141 H and C v RPW [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...clear notice of this. [7] Clauses containing non-disparagement and confidentiality obligations are a common feature in settlements of employment disputes such as occurred in this case. These are often necessary to maintain requirements as to privacy and preserve future employment prospects and business normalcy as the parties move on from the dispute. In addition, where the employment relationship is to continue, despite the dispute arising, non-disparagement is obviously a featu...

6. LCRO 39/2019 Yuri Lukas v BW and CV (29 November 2019) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...communicated with Mr BW by telephone and skype as well as by email and that the Committee did not take these communications into account. [45] Mr Lukas relies heavily on his view that he was not permitted to communicate with Dr CV for reasons of privacy. He says that Dr CV was not applying for a visa as “New Zealand citizens do not need permanent residents visas to stay in New Zealand”.26 [46] He says that Mr BW and Dr CV “have a history of providing misleading and false i...

7. Advancing Electoral Reform papers [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   ...withholding it. No. Document Comments 1 Advancing Electoral Law Reform Briefing - Key advice Ministry of Justice 14 June 2021 Some information has been withheld in accordance with the following sections of the OIA: • section 9(2)(a) to protect the privacy of natural persons, and • section 9(2)(f)(iv) to protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown and officials; and • section 9(2)(g)(i) to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs thr...

8. LCRO 36/2021 ED v MR and FR (14 April 2022) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...2. [law firm]’s three hard copy files. 3. A USB stick on which is downloaded [law firm]’s estate administration file. [48] I have not viewed the videos of Mrs DM, provided by Mrs ED. I consider this would amount to a breach of Mrs DM’s privacy, and, in any event, I will not be making an assessment of Mrs DM’s capacity to execute the Powers of Attorney or to make other decisions. Review [49] It is important to first address Mrs ED’s complaints about a failure by Mr M...

9. Director of Proceedings v The Ultimate Care Group Ltd [2022] NZHRRT 17 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...case. 3 [9] Publication of Mr A’s name and identifying details would cause his family distress, and their preference is that his name is suppressed. They, too, would be identified by publication of Mr A’s name. In the circumstances the privacy interests of the aggrieved person and his family, outweigh any public interest in knowing his name. [10] The presumption of open justice is satisfied by publication of the Tribunal’s decision and the very detailed Agreed Summary of...

10. HM v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2024] NZACC 004 [pdf, 199 KB]

    ...above note 4. 15 [28] The appellant is entitled to costs. If these cannot be agreed within one month, I shall determine the issue following the filing of memoranda. Suppression [29] I consider it is necessary and appropriate to protect the privacy of the appellant. This order, made under s 160(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, forbids publication of the name, address, occupation, or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. As a result, thi...