Jain v CAC 20007 & Martin [2014] NZREADT 51 [pdf, 55 KB]
...that the decision to publish failed to appreciate that the 4 public interest and/or the deterrent aspect can be served by publishing the decision but omitting the name of the appellant. This, he submitted, does not undermine the consumer protection provisions because there is no suggestion in the Complaints Assessment Committee’s decision that the appellant was a risk to consumers. [9] Mr Spring also referred to the well known authority of Lewis v Wilson & Horton Limi...