Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 83 Kaikorai Service Centre Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 904 KB]

   ...application into areas which, at least initially, are essentially private disputes. The end result of Julian is, perhaps, understandable for the reason identified by Mr Oldfield; the desirability of allowing parties some degree of confidence in the privacy of documents or communications created for the purposes of bargaining. It would be undesirable if parties in bargaining were incentivised to issue proceedings to gain an insight into the other party’s plans (there is no suggesti...

2. [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...

3. ENV-2016-AKL-000197 Adams v Auckland Council [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...is both unnecessary and expensive for property owners. Furthermore, if resource consent is required for three or more dwellings per site, property owners will encounter issues with the criteria for amenity attributes (safety, daylight, sunlight, privacy, functionality and visual amenity) which are ill-defined, and open to interpretation and misuse by Council officers. In my view, Council's alternative solution is both unworkable and subjective, and will result in additional, un...

4. LCRO 39/2019 Yuri Lukas v BW and CV (29 November 2019) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...communicated with Mr BW by telephone and skype as well as by email and that the Committee did not take these communications into account. [45] Mr Lukas relies heavily on his view that he was not permitted to communicate with Dr CV for reasons of privacy. He says that Dr CV was not applying for a visa as “New Zealand citizens do not need permanent residents visas to stay in New Zealand”.26 [46] He says that Mr BW and Dr CV “have a history of providing misleading and false i...

5. Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee Ltd v Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Fisheries Trust - Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Fisheries Trust (2015) 341 Aotea MB 211 (341 AOT 211) [pdf, 254 KB]

   ...investigate its contents. Counsel submitted that TOKM have relied on the information provided by the beneficiary. The trustees of the Rūnanga have signalled that they are not prepared to share the information on their register on the basis of privacy issues and the purposes for which the information was originally obtained. Other persons who attended Court gave submissions on this issue. [43] On the question of whether the iwi register fails to meet the requirements of s 14(d)...

6. UC v YW LCRO 165/2013 (30 November 2016) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...cumulatively the fact that there are nine pieces of what can be described as scurrilous communications, aggravates those individual instances. We find misconduct established, as defined in s 7(1)(a)(i). [84] I do not agree with the Committee that the privacy of the complaints process provides adequate defence to complaint that Mr YW breached his professional obligations in responding to the complaint in the manner he did. [85] In my view Mr YW’s comments, referred to by me at [74]...

7. Sisley & Anor v CAC301 & Anor [2015] NZREADT 50 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...Fergusson Lockwood report; and the measures they took in terms of storage of the report and oral directions to Ms Hodgson for its confidentiality proved to be quite inadequate. On the other hand, there was a practice for staff at the agency to accord privacy to items in Mr Lissington’s desk drawers; Ms Hodgson knew that; Ms Hodgson was well aware of her duty of confidentiality to the appellants, her employer, and the vendors; and we can understand the licensees relying on her integrity...

8. NH v Singh LCRO 53/2013, 91/2013 and 115/2013 (27 August 2014) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...to the public including consumers of legal and conveyancing services; (b) the extent to which publication will enhance public confidence in the provision of legal and conveyancing services; (c) the impact of publication on the interests and privacy of – (i) the complainant; (ii) the practitioner; (iii) any other person. (d) the seriousness of any professional breaches; and (e) whether the practitioner has previously been found to have breached professional standard...

9. LCRO 152/2017 CS v GB (22 May 2018) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...practice”.24 [92] Concerning Mr GB’s conversation with Ms PH in the complex, Ms TC alleges that she “could hear and see” Ms PH and Mr GB “discussing the case in the public area [of the complex] … clearly not protecting [Mr CS’s] privacy”. Her concern is not what Mr GB disclosed to Ms PH, but whether their conversation could be overheard by someone else in the complex.25 She dismisses Mr GB’s statement that he and Ms PH “discussed nothing in the complex”. Sh...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 224 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 167 KB]

    ...issue concerning remedies in this litigation. The defendant says that Ms Alim herself is the best person to locate, list and make available any documents relating to Mr Hay directly from PFC as she is entitled to access these documents under the Privacy Act 1993. [48] Next, the defendant says that terms in the draft order “NA” and “Terry Hay” are too generic, irrelevant, or would produce too many results, and so should not be included in any orders that the Court may make....