3765 items matching your search terms
1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHRRT 10 Reference No. HRRT 016/2015 UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF AND JENNIFER CAMPBELL DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Dr SJ Hickey MNZM, Member Mr RK Musuku, Member REPRESENTATION: Ms N Wills, Director of Proceedings Ms C Humphrey for defendant DATE OF DECISION:...
...immediately cease operations in that location and inform the authorised contact for Ngai Tahu {Te Ao Marama Inc, phone {03) 9311242). Operations may recommence at a time as agreed upon in writing with the Consent Authority. The discovery of Kaiwi (human skeletal remains) or Taonga or artefact material (e.g. pounamu/greenstone) would indicate a site of cultural importance. Appendix A to this consent outlines the process that is to be followed in the event of such a discovery. Helicop...
...in breach of the Privacy Act 1993 (PA) as a result of the lack of timeliness in, and the nature of, the Minister’s 1 [This decision is to be cited as JM v Minister for NZSIS (Application for Non-Publication Orders) [2022] NZHRRT 32.] IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2022] NZHRRT 32 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 responses to JM’s requests for his personal information under information privacy principle (IPP) 6. The Minister generally denies any interference wit...
...[44] Mr Christieson has an arguable case for reinstatement. Does the balance of convenience favour interim reinstatement? [45] Mr Christieson has given evidence of the effect on him of the dismissal and his absence from the workplace. 12 A human resources consultant. [46] This is a challenge regarding an interim reinstatement application and it is necessary to balance the extent to which the effect of his continuing absence from the workplace cannot be rectified if he...
...contents of what was then this draft affidavit not only did not allay its concerns but exacerbated them. In particular, she says that at para 4(a) of Ms Park’s draft affidavit the intended deponent indicated that she had searched LSG’s hard copy human resources files and provided documents to its counsel for inclusion in the schedule of privileged documents. [10] Counsel for the plaintiff are critical that Ms Park did not depose to when those searches had occurred, and the lang...
...process”; (iii) made its determination based on uncontested allegations that disparagement had occurred; and (iv) had not considered its own position as a “government agency” and by making the determination had impeded her application to the Human Rights Review Tribunal; (b) the compliance order affected, adversely, her ability to prepare for the other proceeding between her and the Vice-Chancellor; and (c) the determination was flawed because it contravened the “Public...
...chain that she shared her concern with colleagues – at one point asking advice as to how to handle the invitations. [57] Although she did not wish to complain formally, she provided the email chain (of three months’ duration by then) to the human resources officer who conducted her exit interview. In turn, that person was also sufficiently concerned about the email chain to pass it to the human resources manager. [58] In evidence, Ms X confirmed that it had “definitely no...
...sectional interests; (f) The Trust does not provide civil or social advocacy services; (g) The Trust is not an animal welfare organisation, civil liberty service, conservation association, disease research organisation, social advocacy service, human rights association, or anything similar. [34] He also says that previously on the appellant’s objection citing the above discrepancies, Ms Gerber from ACC accepted (by email dated 14 April 2021) that ACC’s decision to reclassify t...
...discretion to cure non-compliance with the High Court Rules. [21] Mr Hodge referred to Attorney-General v Howard [2010] NZCA 58 where the Court of Appeal considered whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal when the appeal had not been made strictly in accordance with the statutory procedural requirements of the Human Rights Act 1993. The timeframes for service of the notice of appeal on the respondent and the Human R...
...manner that facilitated the resolution of the issues that were the subject of the proceedings. (3)–(4) … [33] In Commissioner of Police v Andrews, the High Court was concerned with the almost identical costs provision for proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the HRRT).3 The HRRT had declined to award costs in favour of the Commissioner of Police against the unsuccessful claimant. It had rejected the traditional civil litigation approach of ‘costs follow the...