Search Results

1. Hide v Official Assignee (Discovery) [2018] NZHRRT 6 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...the personal information (about him) collected by the Official Assignee was not collected for a lawful purpose (Principle 1), that collection of Mr Hide’s personal information from third parties rather than directly from Mr Hide himself was not permitted by Principle 2(2) and that the information was collected by unlawful or unfair means or intruded to an unreasonable degree upon the personal affairs of Mr Hide, including the medical affairs of his family (Principle 4). More part...

2. Legal Complaints Review Officer v Hong [2015] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...previously. 3. Mitigating features [21] There was no direct harm to clients in the manner in which Mr Hong conducted himself. No dishonesty was involved. [22] We accept that Mr Hong felt strongly provoked by Mr Deliu, however that cannot be permitted to excuse Mr Hong’s behaviour, which was intemperate, as found. 8 Hong v Auckland Standards Committee No. 3 [2014] NZHC 287. 6 [23] The strongest factor which we can take...

3. [2009] NZEmpC AC 22/09 EBIIWU & Ors v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...protection provision compliant with s69OJ. Counsel for the defendant were unprepared to address this belated and new cause of action and I refused Mr Yukich leave to amend the plaintiffs’ statement of claim at trial for that reason. I did, however, permit the point to be argued in the event that the plaintiffs are unsuccessful on their first cause of action that no employee protection provision was ratified as required by law. [3] The second plaintiffs are five saw doctors at Ca...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 41 Shortland v Alexander Construction Co Ltd [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...Petherick opposed that course. As it was common ground that redundancy was raised when the matter was before the Authority and Mr Petherick was able to effectively cross-examine on this issue, I find that there was little prejudice to the plaintiff in permitting this ground of defence to be pursued and I allowed the amendment. Did the employment agreement comply with s 66? [15] Section 66(2)(a) provides that before an employee and an employer agree that the employment will end i...

5. HIJ v RST and UVW (Publication) [2013] NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...is too long to repeat here in its entirety and much of it is irrelevant for present purposes. We reproduce only Rule 11(1)(a) and (b). It will be seen that the prohibition on disclosure is not absolute. Disclosure to the individual concerned is permitted as is disclosure authorised by the individual. But the agency disclosing the information must show a belief, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure is to the individual or is authorised by the individual: Rule 11: LIMITS ON DISCL...

6. Li & Gao v CAC 408 & Riley & Loughran [2016] NZREADT 31 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...conditional interest in a purchase. He submits that such an intrusion in the privacy of such parties is not appropriate or warranted, nor should Barfoot & Thompson be put in a position where a party making allegations based purely on speculation is permitted to make such direct contact with customers or potential customers where personal information has been obtained for a completely different purpose. The Approach of the Authority [27] The Authority submits that we do have jurisd...

7. South Waikato District Council.pdf [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...exclusion for wetlands created for infrastructure purposes (infrastructure wetlands). Rule 3.11.4.9 36. The Appeal against Rule 3.11.4.9 seeks relief to amend the rule to add clarity relating to: (a) That farming does not form part of the ‘permitted baseline’; (b) Potential effects considered under this rule include cumulative effects at the sub-catchment and catchment scales, using a ‘no discharge’ baseline; and (c) Whether Policies 2(c) and 5 apply to all discha...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 36 Hilford v Board of Trustees of Whangarei Boys’ High School [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...school which held this information in trust for parents or guardians should also be protected. The Authority would retain possession and control of the documents and they would be considered by it as it saw fit. Inspection by Mrs Hilford would be permitted on application and as noted, subject to such conditions as may be imposed for security purposes. Mrs Hilford, or Mr Halse on her behalf, were to confirm to the Authority that the destruction of the documents as ordered...

9. FFNZ - EiC - M L Lord (5 Feb 2021) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...people considerably outside their comfort zone, with a number of farmers telling us they simply won’t be up to presenting before the court, as it is too overwhelming, and too costly for them to seek legal expertise and assistance. 24. Deemed permit holders in particular are facing significant pressure, more so for those who for some period of time have been working in groups towards deadlines in the Resource Management Act, who now are facing quite different outcomes. The s...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 150 Williams v Chesterton Group Ltd (In Liquidation) [pdf, 35 KB]

    ...now in liquidation and the liquidator has both declined to agree to the continuation of the balance of the proceedings brought against the company in the Authority, and to appear on the defendant’s behalf. The only cause of action that the law permits the plaintiff to maintain against the defendant in these circumstances is a claim to a penalty payable to the Crown and a 1 AA400/09, 12 November 2009. claim for costs in r...