Search Results

1. LCRO 121/2023 AI v HR (12 December 2023) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...direct such publication of his or her decision as the Review Officer considers necessary or desirable in the public interest. “Public interest” engages issues such as consumer protection, public confidence in legal services and the interests and privacy of individuals. [123] Having had regard to the issues raised by this review, I have concluded that it is desirable in the public interest that this decision be published in a form that does not identify the parties or others involved...

2. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v A [2014] NZLCDT 77 [pdf, 581 KB]

   ...day of November 2014 BJ Kendall Chairperson ADDENDUM – NON PUBLICATION ORDER The Tribunal notes that counsel agree and find that it is proper, having regard to the interests of the practitioner and the complainant, including the privacy of the complainant and having regard to the public interest, to make and hereby makes an order pursuant to s 240, prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the complainant and the practitioner....

3. Ms L v REAA Registrar [2013] NZREADT 47 [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...with all parties to a transaction, and to not engage in conduct likely to bring the industry into disrepute. [39] In Revill, we noted the trust which consumers place in sales people: “[22] ... Real estate salespersons typically operate in the privacy of their clients’ homes. Indeed they are required to, for example in providing appraisals. This requires consumers to place a high degree of trust in licensees and could leave consumers in a vulnerable position ...” The Formal Su...

4. UY v Bunbury LCRO 17 / 2012 (4 March 2013) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...protection to the public including consumers of legal and conveyancing services; b) the extent to which publication will enhance public confidence in the provision of legal and conveyancing services; c) the impact of publication on the interests and privacy of - i. the Complainant; ii. the Practitioner; iii. any other person; d) the seriousness of any professional breaches; and e) whether the Practitioner has previously been found to have breached professional standards....

5. [2019] NZEnvC 090 Saville v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 4.9 MB]

   ...(viii) Avoid potentiat land uses and land management practices, which create unacceptable or significant conflict with neighbouring land-based activities , including adjoining urban areas. (ix) Maintenance of a level of rurat amenity, including privacy, rural outlook, spaciousness, ease of access and quietness, consistent with the range of permitted rural activities in the lone . (x) Retention of the amenities, quality and character of the different rurat environments within the D...

6. Apatu v Trustees of Owhaoko C Trust - Owhaoko C 1 and C 2 [2010] 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 34 (2010 APPEAL 34) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...as to rights which require assistance, for example, from a solicitor, the trustee is not bound to incur the costs of this unless the beneficiary is willing to pay the reasonable costs of complying. (i) Where serious issues of confidentiality or privacy arise, the withholding of documents may be justified. (j) In exceptional cases the Courts have jurisdiction to exercise their supervisory power in favour of an applicant who has yet to be determined to be a beneficiary.” (pp 545-546)...

7. [2018] NZEmpC 83 Kaikorai Service Centre Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 904 KB]

   ...application into areas which, at least initially, are essentially private disputes. The end result of Julian is, perhaps, understandable for the reason identified by Mr Oldfield; the desirability of allowing parties some degree of confidence in the privacy of documents or communications created for the purposes of bargaining. It would be undesirable if parties in bargaining were incentivised to issue proceedings to gain an insight into the other party’s plans (there is no suggesti...

8. [2021] NZEnvC 018 Hadley v Waterfall Park Developments Limited [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...July 2020 at (33). CS Meehan affidavit sworn 10 July 2020 at [44) and [46]. B Gilbert affidavit sworn 31 July 2020 at (44]. 12 mature trees". As such, she says the Planting does not offer any wind protection, visual screening, and/ or privacy to that dwelling.43 [29] QLDC's planner, Ms Standish, accepts Mr Meehan's evidence that the Site is being used for production and livestock purposes and that the primary present use of the Site is farming. However, she does n...

9. ENV-2016-AKL-000197 Adams v Auckland Council [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...is both unnecessary and expensive for property owners. Furthermore, if resource consent is required for three or more dwellings per site, property owners will encounter issues with the criteria for amenity attributes (safety, daylight, sunlight, privacy, functionality and visual amenity) which are ill-defined, and open to interpretation and misuse by Council officers. In my view, Council's alternative solution is both unworkable and subjective, and will result in additional, un...

10. LCRO 39/2019 Yuri Lukas v BW and CV (29 November 2019) [pdf, 151 KB]

    ...communicated with Mr BW by telephone and skype as well as by email and that the Committee did not take these communications into account. [45] Mr Lukas relies heavily on his view that he was not permitted to communicate with Dr CV for reasons of privacy. He says that Dr CV was not applying for a visa as “New Zealand citizens do not need permanent residents visas to stay in New Zealand”.26 [46] He says that Mr BW and Dr CV “have a history of providing misleading and false i...