Search Results

1. [2024] NZIACDT 25 - EM v Ma (25 October 2024) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...[63] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.20 It must balance the public’s interest in knowing of wrongdoing by advisers and knowing the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, with the privacy of individuals. 20 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act, s 50A. 14 [64] There is no public interest in knowing the name of Ms Ma’s client, the employer, its director or the agents. [65] The Tribunal orders that no infor...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 181 Ford v Henry Brown and Co Ltd [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...approval before contacting his previous workplace for information about his time there. It was this step which set the (unjustified dismissal) ball rolling. Mr Ford felt aggrieved about the circumstances surrounding his dismissal, including that his privacy had been breached. [45] It is relevant, when assessing what was causative of Mr Ford’s emotional harm, that there were a number of issues going on in the workplace at the time of Mr Ford’s dismissal and the lead-up to i...

3. [2024] NZREADT 38 – TX v REAA (22 October 2024) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [89] Having regard to the interests of the public in knowing of any professional wrongdoing of licensees and also the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, balancing that against the privacy of the individuals involved, it is appropriate to order publication of the decision without naming the property management company or any person. ___________________ C Sandelin Deputy Chairperson ___________________...

4. [2024] NZIACDT 03 – MT v Murthy (11 January 2024) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...there has been any breach of confidentiality. The Authority would have been entitled to demand to see the file of that other client (though perhaps not in the context of a complaint against Ms Murthy) and it is itself subject to confidentiality/privacy obligations. If there is a breach of confidentiality, it is minor. There is no breach of cl 4(a). The outcome would be different if the file had been inadvertently sent to another client or third party. (10) Failed to ensure Immig...

5. Eggo v Tupene - Opape No 1A No 1B (2017) 169 Waiariki MB 45 (169 WAR 45) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...to rights which require assistance, for example, from a solicitor, the trustee is not bound to incur the costs of this unless the beneficiary is willing to pay the reasonable costs of complying. (i) Where serious issues of confidentiality or privacy arise, the withholding of documents may be justified. (j) In exceptional cases the Courts have jurisdiction to exercise their supervisory power in favour of an applicant who has yet to be determined to be a beneficiary.” (pp 545-...

6. [2023] NZREADT 1 - CAC 1904 v Bright (16 January 2023) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. 9 See also Mr Bright’s “Comments/Responses to Complaint” dated 31 July 2019 (at [18]). 13 PUBLICATION [52] Having regard to the privacy of the complainant and the interests of the public, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision without identifying the complainant.10 ___________________ D J Plunkett Chair ___________________ G J Den...

7. McCarthy v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2022] NZACC 213 [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...any diagnosis provided on file for the right wrist. As stated above, the completely redacted consultation 29 September 2021 potentially contains material evidence that could inform the opinions reached in this report. Redaction is usually for privacy reasons, and the claimant would need to provide consent to have that consultation unredacted in order for me to consider the information contained. 5 [14] On 1 February 2022, proceedings were held to review the IMU’s decision...

8. [2023] NZREADT 24 - CAC 2103 v Lieven (21 August 2023) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...(d) of the RTA). (b) Ms Lieven had not breached s 48(3)(b) of the RTA as no viewings of the property had taken place. (c) Ms Lieven’s conduct breached s 38(2) of the RTA in that she interfered with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. 5 (d) The tenants had acted reasonably to seek basic conditions for entry under s 48(3A) of the RTA. (e) Ms Lieven’s response to the tenants after the complainant issued a trespass notice – “Then I’ll sue you for eac...

9. Sax v Commissioner of Police (Strike-Out – Discrimination) [2022] NZHRRT 33 [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...regarded as a reason for the closure of courts, or the issue of suppression orders in their various alternative forms: … A significant reason for adhering to a stringent principle, despite sympathy for those who suffer embarrassment, invasions of privacy or even damage by publicity of their proceedings is that such interests must be sacrificed to the greater public interest in adhering to an open system of justice. Otherwise, powerful litigants may come to think that they can extract fr...

10. BORA Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill [pdf, 362 KB]

    ...to be ‘left alone’, and the public interest in the objective of the search. [7] Whether a search is unreasonable will depend on many factors, including the nature of the place or object being searched, the degree of intrusiveness into personal privacy and the rationale for the search. [8] The greater the degree of intrusiveness, the greater the justification required (and the greater the attendant safeguards required to ensure that the justification is present). 25.While the Bill dr...