Damages awarded

Damages Awarded by the Human Rights Review Tribunal under Human Rights Act 1993, Privacy Act 1993 and Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994

DateCaseNotesAward
22 March 2012 Director of Proceedings v Taikura Trust [2012] NZHRRT 3 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 3, 4(1) and 4(5)
N/A
22 March 2012 Director of Proceedings v Aranui Home and Hospital Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 4 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of breach of Code – Right 4(1)
N/A
27 March 2012 Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 5 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of breach of privacy
 
  • s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$10,000

26 April 2012 Hale v Chester Burt Funeral Home Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 10 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
  • defendant to publish apology

 

  • s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$5,000

28 March 2012 Director of Proceedings v Zhu [2012] NZHRRT 7 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 1(1), 2, 3, 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3)
 
  • s 57(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$5,000

6 July 2012 Fehling v South Westland Area School [2012] NZHRRT 15 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$10,000

23 August 2012 Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 18 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
  • s 85(1)(d) – company to provide aggrieved person with access to personal information
 
  • s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

 $20,000

30 August 2012 Holmes v Ministry of Social Development [2012] NZHRRT 19   PA Tribunal found two separate   breaches.  In relation to both breaches a declaration made under s 85(1)(a) that there had been an interference with privacy.  In relation to the first   breach $10,000 awarded for emotional harm.  In relation to the second breach damages of $7,000 awarded for emotional harm.  On appeal the High Court set aside the $10,000 award.  The $7,000 award was reduced to $2,000. $2,000
7 September 2012 Steele v Board of Trustees of Salisbury School [2012] NZHRRT 20 PA Declaration of interference with privacy denied.  No damages or other forms of remedy under ss 85 and 88 awarded.  This on account of Mr Steele’s behaviour as a litigant. N/A
1 November 2012 Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Hamilton [2012] NZHRRT 24 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
  • s 85(1)(d) – Mr Hamilton to provide access to withheld information.
 
  • s 88(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit
$5,000
  • s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm
$15,000
16 November 2012 Nilsson v Summerset Care Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 25 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 4(1), 4(2), 4(3) and 6(1)
 
N/A
25 February 2013 Director of Proceedings v Emms [2013] NZHRRT 5 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 2, 4(1), 4(2), 6(2) and 7(1)
 
  • s 54(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$15,000

  • Application by Director for an award of punitive damages under s 57(1)(c) dismissed
 
20 September 2013 Geary v Accident Compensation Corporation [2013] NZHRRT 34 PA Principle 6 claim
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
  • s 85(1)(d) – ACC to provide access to withheld information
 
  • s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$5,000

Principle 11 claim
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 88(1)(c) – damages for significant emotional harm

$15,000

3 October 2013 Director of Proceedings v Northlink Health [2013] NZHRRT 35 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of breach of Code – Right 4(1)
N/A
14 November 2013 Director of Proceedings v Candish [2013] NZHRRT 40 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of breach of Code – Rights 4(1) and 4(2)
N/A
4 February 2014 Director of Proceedings v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board [2014] NZHRRT 4 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 4(1), 4(4) and 6
N/A
12 February 2014 DML v Montgomery [2014] NZHRRT 6 HRA (appeal abandoned on 9 June 2014)
  • s 92I(3)(a) – declaration that plaintiff subjected to language of a sexual nature which was unwelcome and offensive to the plaintiff and which was repeated and of such a significant nature that it had a detrimental effect on the plaintiff in the   course of her employment
  • s 92I(3)(b) – order restraining defendants from continuing or repeating breach of s 62
 
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$25,000

  • order under s 92I(3)(f) that defendants, in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission, provide training to the first defendant and to the management staff of the second defendant in relation to their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1993
 
24 February 2014 Nakarawa v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZHRRT 9 HRA (appeal abandoned)
  • s 92I(3)(a) – declaration that AFFCO committed a breach of s 22(1) by discriminating against Mr Nakarawa for reason of his religious beliefs
 N/A
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit in the form of wages Mr Nakarawa might reasonably have been expected to obtain but for the breach
$12,118
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(c) – damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings
$15,000
  • s 92I(3)(f) – order that AFFCO, in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission, provide training to its management staff in relation to their and AFFCO’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1993
 
5 June 2014 Director of Proceedings v Saxon [2014] NZHRRT 23 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 1(1), 1(2), 4(2), 6(2) and 7(1).
N/A
17 June 2014 Director of Proceedings v Killarney Rest Home (2009) Ltd [2014] NZHRRT 28 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 4(1), and 4(2).
N/A
26 August 2014 Director of Proceedings v Southern District Health Board [2014] NZHRRT 38 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 4(1), and 4(2).
N/A
29 August 2014 Koso v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZHRRT 39 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
  • balance of claims dismissed.
 
N/A
30 September 2014 Director of Proceedings v Healthcare of New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZHRRT 46 HDCA
  • s 54(1)(a) – declaration of   breach of Code – Rights 1(1), 4(3) and 4(4).
N/A
6 October 2014 Armfield v Naughton [2014] NZHRRT 48 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
  • s 85(1)(d) – cease and desist orders
 
  • s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm.

$7,000

14 October 2014 Meulenbroek v Vision Antenna Systems Ltd [2014] NZHRRT 51 HRA
  • s 92I(3)(a) – declaration that Vision committed a breach of s 22(1) by discriminating against Mr Meulenbroek for reason of his religious beliefs.
 
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of lost wages.
$8,128.09
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of legal expenses.
$6,929.90
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(c) – damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
$25,000.00
  • s 92I(3)(f) – order that   Vision, in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission, provide training to its directors and management staff in relation to their and Vision’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1993.
 
3 November 2014 Holmes v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2014] NZHRRT 54 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit
$10,804
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm.
$10,000
15 December 2014 Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Valli and Hughes [2014] NZHRRT 58 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit
$5,000
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm
$15,000
  • s 85(1)(c) and (d) – defendants to  provide access to withheld information.
 
19 February 2015 Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Schubach [2015] NZHRRT 4 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of legal expenses
$1,374.25
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit
$5,000
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm
$5,000
  • s 85(1)(c) and (d) – defendant to provide access to withheld information.
 
2 March 2015 Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] NZHRRT 6 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of lost income
$38,350
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of legal expenses
$15,543.10
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit
$16,177.78
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm
$98,000
  • s 85(1)(b), (d) and (e) – restraining order
  • s 85(1)(d) and (e) – retraction of information
  • s 85(1)(d) – retraction of email and apology to be given
  • s 85(1)(d) and (e) – order   that NZCU Baywide, in conjunction with the Privacy Commissioner, provide training to its management staff in relation to their and NZCU Baywide’s   obligations under the Privacy Act 1993.
 
9 March 2015 Satnam Singh v Shane Singh and Scorpion Liquor (2006) Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 8 HRA – [Decision set aside on 2 June 2015   and re-hearing ordered.  See new   decision at [2016] NZHRRT 38 (23 December 2016)]
  • s 92I(3)(a) – declaration that first and second defendants committed a breach of s 63 by subjecting plaintiff to racial harassment.
  • s 92I(3)(b) – order   restraining first and second defendants from continuing or repeating the   breach of s 63.
 
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(c) – damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

$45,000

  • s 92I(3)(f) – order that first and second defendants, in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission, provide training to first defendant and management staff of second defendant in relation to their and Scorpion Liquor’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1993.
 
17 April 2015 Heads v Attorney-General [2015] NZHRRT 12 HRA
  • s 92J – declaration of   inconsistency.
 
 N/A
14 May 2015 Taylor v Orcon Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 15 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit
$10,000
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm
$15,000
  • s 85(1)(d) and (e) – order that Orcon Ltd, in conjunction with the Privacy Commissioner, provide training to its staff in relation to the obligations of Orcon Ltd under the Privacy Act 1993
 
7 July 2015 Watson v Capital & Coast District Health Board [2015]   NZHRRT 27 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit
$5,000
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm
$10,000
  • s 85(1)(d) and (e) – order that CCDHB provide to Ms Watson (without redaction) the two withheld   documents within five days after the date of decision.
 
29 July 2015 Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Crampton [2015]   NZHRRT 35 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$18,000

  • s 85(1)(d) and (e) – order that Mr Crampton attend, at his own expense, an “Introduction to the Privacy Act” workshop run by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
 
11 August 2015 Holmes v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2015] NZHRRT   36 PA (appeal dismissed 26 November 2015)
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$400

9 October 2015 McClelland v Schindler Lifts NZ Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 45 HRA
  • s 92I(3)(a) – declaration that defendant committed breach of s 22(1) by discriminating against plaintiff for reason of a physical disability or impairment suspected or assumed or believed by Schindler to exist.
 
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of lost wages
$3,713
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of travel expenses
$700
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(c) – damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings
$25,000
  • s 92I(3)(f) – order that defendant, in conjunction with Human Rights Commission, provide training to senior management staff in relation to their and defendant’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1993.
 
22 December 2015 Deeming v Whangarei District Council [2015] NZHRRT 55 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$2,000

  • s 85(1)(d) and (e) – order that Whangarei District Council, in conjunction with the Privacy Commissioner and at its own expense, provide training to its councillors and management staff in relation to their and the Whangarei District Council’s obligations under the Privacy Act 1993.
 
2 March 2016 MacGregor v Craig [2016] NZHRRT 6 HRA
  • s 92I(3)(a) – declaration that defendant breached the terms of the settlement of the plaintiff’s sexual   harassment complaint.
  • s 92I(3)(b) – order restraining defendant from continuing or repeating the breaches of his   confidentiality obligations under the settlement, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the breach or conduct of any similar kind.
 
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of lost earnings.
$7,000
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(a) – damages for pecuniary loss in the form of legal expenses.
$1,780
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(c) – damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
$120,000
7 March 2016 Adoption Action Inc v Attorney-General [2016] NZHRRT 9 HRA
  • s 92J – declaration of   inconsistency
 N/A
11 May 2016 Sansom v Department of Internal Affairs [2016] NZHRRT 17 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy.
 N/A
23 December 2016 Satnam Singh v Shane Singh and Scorpion Liquor (2006) Ltd [2016] NZHRRT 38 HRA
  • s 92I(3)(a) – declaration that first and second defendants committed a breach of s 63 by subjecting plaintiff to racial harassment.
 
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(c) – damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

$25,000

  • s 92I(3)(f) – order that first defendant, in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission, undertake training in relation to his obligations under the Human Rights Act 1993 to ensure he and any future employees are aware of those obligations.
 
21 July 2017 Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation [2017] NZHRRT   26 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • ss 85(1)(c) and 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm

$7,500

26 March 2018 Dotcom v Crown Law Office [2018] NZHRRT 7 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
 
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(b) – damages for loss of benefit
$30,000
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm
$60,000
  • s 85(1)(d) and (e) – order that the Crown comply with the information privacy requests made by Mr   Dotcom.
 
14 June 2018 Naidu v Royal Australasian College of Surgeons [2018] NZHRRT 23 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of   interference with privacy
  • s 85(1)(d) and (e) – order that RACS comply with the information privacy request made by Dr Naidu.
N/A 
31 July 2018 Taylor v Corrections [2018] NZHRRT 35 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – no declaration of interference with privacy

Withheld

  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – no damages for emotional harm

Withheld under PVCA 2005, ss 13 and 14

27 September 2018 Taylor v Corrections (No. 2) [2018] NZHRRT 43 PA
  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of interference with privacy
  • s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c) – no damages for emotional harm

N/A

22 January 2019 Hennessy v Attorney-General [2019] NZHRRT 4

HRA

  • s 92J – declaration of inconsistency
N/A
22 January 2019 Tapiki and Eru v New Zealand Parole Board [2019] NZHRRT 5

PA

  • s 85(1)(a) – declaration of interference with privacy
 
  • ss 85(1)(c) and 88(1)(c) – damages for emotional harm
$16,000 (Ms Tapiki)$12,000 (Ms Eru)
22 January 2019 Godfrey v Harvey [2019] NZHRRT 6

HRA

  • s 92I(3)(a) – declaration that first and second defendants committed a breach of s 53(1)(c) by discriminating against plaintiff by reason of her reliance on a guide dog.
 
  • ss 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(c) – damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

$4,000

This page was last updated: