Search Results

1. LCRO 276/2013+293/2013+242/2016 CS v VN, PR and ZW ZM v VC [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...request to uplift. He acted on it promptly by communicating with the complainants and their new lawyer. The new lawyer did not challenge Mr CS’ right to claim to a lien. They discussed the documents that could be made available pursuant to the Privacy Act 1993, and although Mr CS’ view was that it would have been pointless, he appeared willing enough to provide those. [67] In the circumstances, I disagree with the Committee’s view that Mr CS simply refused to hand over the...

2. Rossi v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Strike-Out Application) [2016] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...unspecified alleged breaches of the Immigration Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights). [35] As correctly pointed out in the submissions for the Ministry, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act 1993 and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of other New Zealand statutes, including alleged breaches of the Immigration Act and the Bill of Rights. See Howard v...

3. AH v ZP LCRO 82/2011 (7 February 2014) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...transaction involving them professionally. The Committee described the contact as “inappropriate”, 7 but made no specific finding of breach of the Rules. [85] The Practitioner explained that she had originally but erroneously, relied on a privacy waiver that she then discovered applied only to DF Ltd, and not to any other party. She nevertheless denied any wrongdoing, noting that Mr M stated that the information provided was on a solicitor to solicitor basis, and was intended...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 43 A Labour Inspector v Smiths City Group Ltd [pdf, 503 KB]

   ...woken if he was needed by a resident in the home, could not consume alcohol, could not have visitors without prior permission and was not to disturb residents during the night. He could only engage in a very limited range of other activities. His privacy was limited and he did not have access to the comforts and resources of his home. [35] The remaining two factors also indicated sleepover was work. The Court held that the greater and more extensive the responsibilities placed...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Schlooz [2021] NZLCDT 12 ( 14 April 2021) [pdf, 400 KB]

   ...Tribunal hearing concerning Ms Ys’ contractual dispute, when she took issue with Mr Y about the disclosure of her salary at the hearing, in an email on 10 September 2019 at 18:59: 18 [Redacted], you fuckwit. I have not breached your privacy & the last 2 paragraphs of your below email communication are another indicator of what a moronic idiot you are. Furthermore, you erroneously state below that [redacted] publicly disclosed your so called private information. Where wa...

6. INZ (Calder) v Horan [2019] NZIACDT 13 (11 March 2019) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...clients’ consent and he was asked to provide his clients’ authority for such disclosure. Mr Horan responded in an email to Mr W (verbatim):13 Now, Mr [W] if I ever need you to advise me that you may consider that I may have breached my client’s privacy in regards to my having included another professional Licensed Immigration Adviser or a lawyer or any other individual then I will let you know. However if you feel that your inference of my having done anything untoward has subs...

7. [2019] NZEnvC 090 Saville v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 4.9 MB]

   ...(viii) Avoid potentiat land uses and land management practices, which create unacceptable or significant conflict with neighbouring land-based activities , including adjoining urban areas. (ix) Maintenance of a level of rurat amenity, including privacy, rural outlook, spaciousness, ease of access and quietness, consistent with the range of permitted rural activities in the lone . (x) Retention of the amenities, quality and character of the different rurat environments within the D...

8. [2021] NZREADT 06 - Silcock (22 January 2021) [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...Silcock’s complaint [19] Ms Silcock complained to Ms Coombes, copied to Mr Foster, (the compliance manager at the Agency) on 7 August 2019. She was told that the prospective purchasers had cancelled the appointment to view the property, but for privacy reasons, was not given copies of any communications from the prospective purchasers to establish that. [20] In her complaint to the Authority, Ms Silcock said that Mr Watson “failed to bring buyers through when he had prior...

9. [2021] NZEnvC 018 Hadley v Waterfall Park Developments Limited [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...July 2020 at (33). CS Meehan affidavit sworn 10 July 2020 at [44) and [46]. B Gilbert affidavit sworn 31 July 2020 at (44]. 12 mature trees". As such, she says the Planting does not offer any wind protection, visual screening, and/ or privacy to that dwelling.43 [29] QLDC's planner, Ms Standish, accepts Mr Meehan's evidence that the Site is being used for production and livestock purposes and that the primary present use of the Site is farming. However, she does n...

10. Wang v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409) v Sweetingham [2017] NZREADT 29 [pdf, 274 KB]

    ...did not disclose the true rear boundary of the property, and allowed her to think that the boundary was at the wooden fence. She said that as a result, she lost 2.2 metres of her deck, and 5.8 metres of lawn frontage. Further, she lost a lot of privacy. [b] Ms Wang did not disclose to her that the cycleway was about to be built on the adjoining land. She said that the disruption from construction of the cycleway was almost intolerable, as it involved diggers and tractors shakin...