4485 items matching your search terms
...59: 60: 61: 62: 63: 64: 65: 66: 67: 68: 69: 70: 71: 72: 73: 74: 75: 76: 77: 78: 79: 80: 81: 82: 83: 84: 85: 86: 87: 88: 89: 90: 91: 92: 93: 94: 95: 96: 97: 98: 99: 100: 101: 102: 103: 104: 105: 106: 107: 108: 109: 110: 111: 112: 113: 114: 115: 116: 117: 118: 119: 120: 121: 122: 123: 124: 125: 126: 127: 128: 129: 130: 131: 132: 133: 134: 135:...
...were not investigated by the Privacy Commissioner and there is no reasonably arguable cause of action. [10] The actions investigated by the Privacy Commissioner are detailed in the Certificate of Investigation dated 11 June 2018. They are: [10.1] Mr Blyde’s request for a copy of his file, which resulted in him receiving a file which he considered had an email missing. This was investigated under Rule 6 of the Health Information Privacy Code (‘HIPC’). 115A Tribunal may strike...
...personal order or a review of a personal order made on ……………………………… [date] for the person in respect of whom the application is made (“the person”) as ollows: f [set out specific order(s) required – see s.10(1) of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (“the Act”)] 3 2. My relationship with the person is as follows: ………………………………………………………………….……………...
...to the Tribunal by the parties. Was there an agreement between the parties? 5. The Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear every claim that is filed. Its jurisdiction is limited by the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. Under section 10(1) of this Act, the Tribunal only has power to hear claims founded on contract, or on tort if they relate to the loss or injury of any property or the recovery of any property. 6. In this case, there is no evidence of any negligence or d...
...not wholly unconnected to regulated services.1 He should have known not to speak as he did. Therefore, we find his conduct amounts to reckless contravention of Rule 8 (the rule that specifies the duty to hold information confidential) and Rule 10.1 (because his comments fell short of the respect and courtesy he should have accorded to his former client).2 1 Section 7(1)(a)(ii) Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA); Orlov v NZ Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal [2...
...Assignee has confirmed that he has not provided such a consent and does not intend to do so. 1 A Labour Inspector v Maharaja India Ltd [2019] NZERA 465 (Member Crichton). 2 Insolvency Act 2006, s 101. 3 Insolvency Act 2006, ss 3 and 117(4)(a)(iii). [7] Turning to the position of MIL, at the date of adjudication Mr Raizada was the sole director and shareholder of that company. A person who is an undischarged bankrupt is...
...operation of Remediation (NZ) Limited's waste management facility Lodgement: ENV-2021-AKL-000059 Remediation (NZ) Limited v Taranaki Regional Council Initiator Remediation (NZ) Limited DeAnne Brabant, Brabant Law, Legal House, Level 7, 101 Lambton Quay, Wellington 6011 Initiator Remediation (NZ) Limited John Maassen, PO Box 5577, Wellington 6145 Initiator Remediation (NZ) Limited Rochelle Stevens, NO COUNSEL FIRM ADDRESS AVAILABLE FOR Nicholsons Respondent Taranaki Region...
...effectiveness of fluoride for reducing dental decay, the number of people who will be 2 New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2014] NZHC 395 at [118]. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid at [101] – [111]. affected by the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate the drinking water, and whether the benefits of adding fluoride to the drinking water outweigh the financial costs. 13. For these reasons, we conclude that any li...
...Terrorism Act 2009 (the AML Act) provides that movement of cash in breach of the AML Act is the importation of a prohibited good.1 [10] Section 68(1) of the AML Act provides that a person must not move cash into or out of New Zealand if the cash: [10.1] Exceeded NZD$10,000 in value;2 [10.2] There was no prescribed report in respect of the movement of cash, and [10.3] It is not an exempt importation. [11] Section 106 of the AML Act provides it is an offence to import cash withou...
...claim, given the basis on which they have filed it. [8] TE and EE have filed their claim on the ground that UO has committed the tort of deceit. The Disputes Tribunal cannot hear such a claim. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction in tort as set out in s 10(1)(c) does not include deceit that results in purely financial loss. [9] The Disputes Tribunal does, however, have jurisdiction to hear claims under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (“the FTA”). Whether UO may have liability under that Act in...