Search Results

1. [2024] NZIACDT 08 - MT v Murthy (21 February 2024) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...magnitude and reach of such disregard or inattention is aggravated and broadened by her past instances of misconduct. [11] The Tribunal’s attention is drawn to s 3 of the Act, setting out the purpose of the Act, namely protecting the interests of consumers. This is a key purpose of sanctions. [12] It is submitted that the wrongdoing could be described as being towards the higher end of the moderate level. Ms Murthy’s conduct is disquieting. She has repeatedly and consistent...

2. OIA-99969.pdf [pdf, 23 MB]

   ...advancements in technology. With these advancements comes an increasing ability to collect, use and disclose personal information. The Act has – broadly speaking – been able to effectively respond. The increased digitisation of government and consumer centric services (including as a result of COVID-19) means the privacy protection framework will need to be reflective of how we all work in the “new normal”. It is in this complex and dynamic environment that the proposed review...

3. Supplementary Government Response to Law Commissions report [pdf, 479 KB]

   ...information sharing when it introduced the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill 91 Implemented through the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 10, 45.3 Implemented in Harmful Communications [CAB Min (13) 10/5] 116 Considered by Cabinet in context of the Consumer Law Reform Bill [EGI Min (12) 16/5] 46 To be considered by Cabinet as part of policy matters arising from the review of NZSIS [CAB Min (13) 14.1] 83, 84 and 92.2 Referred to the Legislation Advisory Committee for its Guidelines, as...

4. Khan v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 6 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...Tribunal made three material findings in this complaint: [25.1] Ms Khetarpal filed the EOI believing it qualified, but she was wrong and her failure to identify the true position was due to lack of care and professionalism under the 2010 Code; [25.2] Consequentially, and without adding to the gravity of that finding, it followed she failed to follow the provisions in the 2010 Code relating to unfounded applications. [25.3] Ms Khetarpal provided two inconsistent explanations to the Regi...

5. Emery v REAA CAC 20002 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 33 [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...against a 10 June 2013 decision of Complaints Assessment Committee 20002 finding he had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct in respect of a complaint made by Ms Abigail Cook (“the complainant”) and outlined below. By its 17 September 2013 decision on consequential penalty, the Committee censured the licensee, fined him $1,000, and ordered that he refund the complainant $1,000 as a share of the marketing fees she had paid to Harcourts Eden in Auckland. [2] Both the complainant and t...

6. J v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 7 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...made three material findings in the Khan complaint: [25.1] Ms Khetarpal filed the EOI believing it qualified, but she was wrong and her failure to identify the true position was due to lack of care and professionalism under the 2010 Code; [25.2] Consequentially, and without adding to the gravity of that finding, it followed she failed to follow the provisions in the 2010 Code relating to unfounded applications. [25.3] Ms Khetarpal provided two inconsistent explanations to the Registrar...

7. Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 403) v Licensee B [2017] NZREADT 1 [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...disgraceful. [14] When determining whether conduct would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, the Tribunal takes into consideration the standards that an agent of good standing should aspire to, in order to promote and protect the interest of consumers in respect of transactions relating to real estate, and of promoting public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work. The standard of proof required before the Tribunal can find a charge under s 73(a) proved is th...

8. Ashworth v Kent (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 55 [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...Kent. On 2 July 2018 Ms Ashworth commenced the present proceedings following a report by the Health and Disability Commissioner published on 9 March 2018 in which the Commissioner found Dr Kent had breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (the Code) in respect of Ms Ashworth. [2] By application filed on 25 July 2018 Dr Kent and Fendalton Eye Clinic Ltd (Fendalton Eye Clinic) seek orders dismissing (or in the alternative striking out) Ms Ashworth’s claim...

9. D v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2020] CEIT-2019-0037 [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...a general concession by IAG that the floor is currently out of level and does not meet the policy standard. [60] Although my analysis is subject to the caveat that it is not reasonably practicable to raise the floor to a level which causes consequential damage to other areas of the house, which in this case includes any element which has pre-existing settlement “locked” into it, my own analysis of the pile locations indicates that consequential damage is less likely than the...

10. Tom De Pelsemaeker - Evidence in Reply (25 June 2021) [pdf, 1.7 MB]

    ...arrangements. 74 I also support the recommendation not to rely on a schedule of rights of priorities either inside or outside the Water Plan. In my view the development and maintenance of such as schedule is likely to be 36 complex and time-consuming, and its benefits in terms of providing transparency for plan users is likely to be overestimated given that this information is typically clearly stated on the deemed permit. Finally, I consider that there is a risk of plan user...