Search Results

1. Chief-Executive-Expenses-1-July-2023-30-June-2024.xlsx [xlsx, 77 KB]

   ...apply and therefore all items are disclosed, unless there is a very good reason not to. The Ombudsman’s view is that "because this expenditure is incurred by very senior employees acting in an official capacity and for a business purpose, the privacy interests of the chief executives who incurred the expenditure are low". Gifts and benefits All gifts, invitations to events and other hospitality, of $50 or more in total value per year, accepted or declined by the CE from people ext...

2. Chief Executive Expenses: 1 February 2019 - 30 June 2019 [xlsx, 68 KB]

   ...apply and therefore all items are disclosed, unless there is a very good reason not to. The Ombudsman’s view is that "because this expenditure is incurred by very senior employees acting in an official capacity and for a business purpose, the privacy interests of the chief executives who incurred the expenditure are low". Gifts and benefits All gifts, invitations to events and other hospitality, of $50 or more in total value per year, accepted or declined by the CE from people ext...

3. [2021] NZEnvC 078 Robins Road Queenstown 2013 Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...already been addressed” at the Council level [39] The appellants submit the grounds of appeal were far from simply asserting a “wrong decision” or being entirely generic. The grounds of appeal identified in particular: (a) visual amenity, privacy, dominance, shading and access to sunlight, and construction effects as being effects of concern; (b) issues with the Council level decision being inconsistent as to its stated application of the ODP and the PDP; (c) permitte...

4. Shi v REAA (reserved decision) [2013] NZREADT 2 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...and to not engage in conduct likely to bring the industry into disrepute. [18] In Revill we noted the trust reposed in sales people who typically operate in an individual’s home: “[22] ... Real estate salespersons typically operate in the privacy of their clients’ homes. Indeed they are required to, for example in providing appraisals. This requires consumers to place a high degree of trust in licensees and could leave consumers in a vulnerable position ...” [19] The...

5. Gravatt v Bulmer (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 81 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHRRT 40 Reference No. HRRT 004/2014 UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN GARY LANCE GRAVATT PLAINTIFF AND DAVID BULMER DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Mr GJ Cook JP, Member Mr BK Neeson, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr GL Gravatt in person Mr WG Manning for defendant DATE OF DECISION: 1 September 2014 D

6. LQ v VN LCRO 43 / 2011 (3 May 2012) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...it was acceptable for VN to breach the requirements of rule 8 for his own benefit, or, in any event, that a lawyer may exercise a discretion as to whether or not he or she complies with the requirements of the rule. LQ was entitled to have her privacy respected. [56] In this regard, I would therefore disagree with the Committee when it stated that “it was not inappropriate for VN to correspond with LR or LR’s lawyer to the extent necessary to obtain information to assist him re...

7. Richard Mayer v Complaints Assessment Committee 304 [2017] NZREADT 44 [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...evidence to show that [the Agency’s’] systems were not sufficient to ensure the professional and appropriate behaviour of [Mr File] given that there is no evidence provided to show that [Mr File] failed in these regards or that [Mr Mayer’s] privacy was compromised. 4.6 [Mr Barns] did investigate the allegations made by [Mr Mayer] and reached the conclusion that [Mr File] behaved appropriately. 4.7 The Committee has determined under section 89(2)(c) of the Act to take no furt...

8. [2023] NZIACDT 17 - NG v Murthy (24 May 2023) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...Ordered to refund to the complainant within one month the sum of $2,200. ORDER FOR SUPPRESSION [57] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.15 This involves balancing the privacy of individuals with the public interest in the transparency and accountability of judicial bodies. [58] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Ms Murthy’s client, the complainant, nor any details of Ms Murthy’s health...

9. [2023] NZIACDT 25 – ED v Dai - Sanctions (25 September 2023) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...[64] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.13 It must balance the public’s right to know of wrongdoing by advisers and to understand the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of the individuals involved. [65] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Mr Dai’s client, the complainant or her husband. [66] The Tribunal orders that no information identifying the complainant or her husband is...

10. Najib v CAC 403 & Lindsay [2016] NZREADT 51 [pdf, 232 KB]

    ...produced at a hearing, and the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person. The power may be exercised if the Tribunal considers it proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including the privacy of the complainant) and the public interest. [21] In its decision in Complaints Assessment Committee v Z the Tribunal held that the Tribunal’s power under s 108 must be read as being subject to ss 64 to 66, such that if the Tribuna...