Search Results

1. Ron-Mansfield-further-submisisons-for-Mr-Tarrant.pdf [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...11 information between state actors and any inappropriate focuses of state actors. 4.11 Further, the way the Royal Commission undertook its investigation is important in reaching this view. The Royal Commission operated in relative privacy so that the material it received was untested and then kept secret (clause 10(2), (3) and (4).). Its approach cannot be seen as a rights-based enquiry, even into the matters it was required to investigate and report on, let alone on an...

2. CK v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 63 / 2011 (11 October 2013) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...deciding whether to publish the identity of the person who is the subject of a censure order, the Standards Committee and the Board must take into account the public interest, and, if appropriate, the impact of publication on the interests and privacy of – (a) the complainant; and (b) clients of the censured person; and (c) relatives of the censured person; and (d) partners, employers, and associates of the censured person; and (e) the censured person. [19] CL referred to...

3. Peters v Wellington Combined Shuttles (Application by Defendant that Jurisdiction be Declined) [2013] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...Part 1A and Part 2 issues about which the complainant may feel aggrieved. Rather, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the “complaint” which was lodged with the Commission at first instance. A not dissimilar system operates under the Privacy Act 1993 and in particular, ss 82(1) and 83 of that Act. See L v T (1998) 5 HRNZ 30 (Morris J, A Knowles, GDS Taylor) at 35. A recent example of those provisions in action is seen in Rafiq v Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand [2...

4. Central Standards Committee 3 v Hunt [2023] NZLCDT 12 (28 April 2023) [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...requested Mr Hunt provide the files relating to the S’s in November 2015, he responded in February 2016 asserting a lien over the file by seeking repayment of his fees. 40. On 22 February 2016 Mrs S sought release of the file by a request under the Privacy Act 1993. Mr Hunt did not provide the file as he considered the request did not relate to a natural person, and he was entitled to refuse it based on the lien and until his fee was paid. 41. By failing to act on the S’s written r...

5. [2015] NZSAAA 01, (30 January 2015) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...that neither the Secretary nor the Ministry have produced any concrete evidence of the requred relationship’s existence. 7 [15] Finally in her submissions on the Ministry’s Regulation 37(2) Report the appellant’s mother raises two privacy concerns resulting from Ministry’s handling of the case. Although neither concern is directly relevant to this appeal and I accordingly do not propose to discuss them here, the Ministry has responded to them in its supplementary sub...

6. [2021] NZACC 41 - ACC v Building Connexion Ltd (1 March 2021) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...sale has been made at wholesale or retail. BCL does not have knowledge of its customers’ trading arrangements16 and a particular invoice could be paid by the builder, homeowner/end user or another party. BCL’s customers are entitled to their privacy and BCL cannot be expected to enquire whether a sale has been made at wholesale or retail and/or to collect this information for future provision to the Corporation. [50] Furthermore, and importantly, I agree with BCL that the na...

7. Greyling v Gimranov [2016] NZIACDT 55 (15 September 2016) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...approach was predicated on Mr Gimranov agreeing to complete the course; [6.2] He said completing the whole course would be unreasonable, as he had excellent client references; [6.3] He claimed Mr Greyling could not see the client references due to privacy considerations; [6.4] He expected the refund of fees to be discounted due to the work he had performed; [6.5] He accepted a caution, but expected the Tribunal to discount the penalty due to the fact he was an employee. Mr Greyling...

8. Legal aid consultation paper: new family legal support - September 2013 [pdf, 457 KB]

   ...payment The reporting system will:  allow secure access for authorised users  be used solely as an administrative, recording and reporting system  not include case notes or provider opinion  be thoroughly assessed for security and privacy impacts to ensure client confidentiality can be maintained. Delegation Providers of this service will be able to delegate recording and reporting tasks within their office in line with the standard Legal Aid Services ‘Deleg...

9. [2021] NZREADT 41 - London v Cartwright (3 August 2021) [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...[42] Section 108 of the Act provides (as relevant): 108 Restrictions on publishing (1) If the Disciplinary Tribunal is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including (without limitation) the privacy of the complainant (if any)) and to the public interest, it may make 1 or more of the following orders: (a) an order prohibiting the publication of any report or account of any part of any proceedings before it, whether held in public...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 213 Coneburn Preserve Holdings Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 5.2 MB]

    ...Activity Area. Recognise the (Hanley Downs) Residential Activity Areas (R(HD)) as being appropriate to accommodate residential development at a greater scale and intensity than elsewhere in the zone. Apply residential development controls to protect privacy and amenity, provide access to sunlight, to achieve design cohesion, and to provide appropriate opportunities outdoor living, consistent with the residential density anticipated in that Activity Area. Enable commercial activitie...