Search Results

1. BS v KC & DC [2024] NZDT 489 (11 June 2024) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...serve. Generally, in a suburban environment an adequate fence will be required to provide a physical boundary between neighbouring properties, identify and demarcate the boundary, comply with any relevant Council requirements, and provide reasonable privacy and a barrier for children and pets. Height of the fence 13. BS would like to build a 2m wooden post, railing and paling fence on the boundary. He says that 2m is required to provide reasonable privacy. He says he would like to g...

2. [2025] NZREADT 06 - UX v REAA (19 February 2025) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...the same day. 7 [19] In an email to the complainant on 11 June 2024, the facilitator stated that some documents shared by the licensees with the Authority were confidential to the vendors and other parties. They could not be shared for privacy reasons. Having reviewed the documents, the facilitator could not identify any disciplinary concerns. The agency was acting on the instructions of the vendors who drove the process. They were aware of the other interests in the pr...

3. LCRO 116/2015 QO v Standards Committee (14 June 2018) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...for her staff to copy the files. Ms QO says that although by then the file ran to around 20,000 pages, she decided against sending them to a commercial copier outside the firm. Ms QO considered that attracted an unacceptable risk to Mrs MN’s privacy. She knew Mrs MN was very sensitive about her privacy and she did not know if or how Mrs MN’s privacy would be protected if she was not holding the materials. [17] Various members of the firm’s support staff photocopied Mrs MN...

4. Goel v Barron [2022] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...hearing, both in Mr Barron’s cross-examination of Mr Goel and in his closing address, Mr Barron again apologised to Mr Goel. [71] In relation to the relevance of an apology a materially similar provision to HRA, s 92I(4) exists in s 102(3) of the Privacy Act 2020 and in s 85(4) of the Privacy Act 1993. In considering the relevance of an apology under s 85(4), the Tribunal in Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation [2017] NZHRRT 26 said: [38] An appropriate and timely apology ca...

5. Health & Disability Commissioner Act 1994

   ...costs to be awarded against Director of Proceedings – Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, s 54(2) Director of Proceedings v Smith (Costs) [2020] NZHRRT 35 Costs – whether costs follow the event in proceedings under Human Rights Act 1993, Privacy Act 1993 and Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 – Human Rights Act 1993, s 105 Turner v University of Otago (Costs) [2021] NZHRRT 48 Director of Proceedings v Smith (Costs) [2020] NZHRRT 35 Director of Proceedings v Nelson (Co...

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Human rights >
   3. Decisions - Index

6. [2020] NZEmpC 129 ANZ Sky Tours Ltd T/A ANZ Sky Tours v Wei [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...online job applications with three or more employers. ANZ Sky Tours sought disclosure of any documents relating to these applications. Ms Wei disclosed documents relating to a job application with one other employer. This employer required a Privacy Act request before providing the documents to Ms Wei. [8] A request for disclosure of documents from the immigration consultant’s file had resulted in only three documents being disclosed. [9] As a result of the disagreements ov...

7. Johnston & Vining Realty Group Ltd v CAC 20002 & Reid [2013] NZREADT 82 [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...involved in proceedings. Section 108(1) reads: “108 Restrictions on publication (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...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 110 Fleming v Attorney-General [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...proceedings without the disclosure of any more information about the private lives of individuals, or matters that are commercially sensitive, than is necessary to satisfy the principle of open justice: (d) the protection of other confidentiality and privacy interests (including those of children and other vulnerable members of the community) and any privilege held by, or available to, any person: (e) the principle of open justice (including the encouragement of fair and accurate rep...

9. Family Legal Advice Service operational policy version 1.4 [pdf, 479 KB]

   ...10 Income 11 Client Eligibility Testing 11 Funding assessment 11 Funding Declaration Form 11 Evidence of identity 12 Evidence of eligibility 12 Audit and compliance requirements 12 Service entitlements 13 Online Recording System 14 Privacy guidelines and requirements 14 Using RMS 15 Users of RMS 15 Support in use of RMS 15 Timeframes for recording 15 3 Payment 16 Fee schedule 16 Change of lawyers 16 Disbursements 17 Travel 17 Interpreters/transla...

10. HF v SZ LCRO 186 / 2009 (16 January 2012) - Publication Decision [pdf, 62 KB]

    ...in particular Rule 30 of the Regulations which requires the prior approval of the Executive Board of the Law Society, and also requires a Standards Committee to take into account various factors that are set out. These include the interests and privacy of the complainant, the clients of the censured person, relatives of the censured person, his or her associates, partners or employees and finally, the censured person. [8] Section 142 also provides that a Standards Committee may dir...