Search Results

1. LCRO 125/2023 TR v HJ (28 November 2023) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...publication of his or her decision as the Review Officer considers necessary or desirable in the public 24 interest. “Public interest” engages issues such as consumer protection, public confidence in legal services and the interests and privacy of individuals. [132] 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. [2010] NZEmpC 67 Porteous v Chief Executive of the Department of Building & Housing [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...position, 23 January 2009, Mr Quigg wrote again to the Department’s solicitors seeking an extension of time to consider the offer. In doing so, he relied principally on an earlier request for information under the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act which had not then been satisfied. The Department responded by extending the time for Mr Porteous to accept the revised offer until 25 February 2009. [32] In early February 2009, a work permit for Mr Porteous was approved by...

3. Human-Rights-Commission-submissions-on-scope-of-inquiry.pdf [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected;50 (iii) Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process; 51 and (iv) Taking measures to minimise inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary, and ensure their safety, as well 47 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims above, n 46, at [1]. 48 At [4]. 49 At [6(a)]. 50 At [6(b)]. 51At [6(c)]. 14 as that of their families and witn...

4. LCRO 126/2023 EG v HJ (28 November 2023) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...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. [148] 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 i...

5. LCRO 05/2018 ZZ v XX and WW Lawyers (26 September 2018) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...the lawyers were required to complete a significant amount of work on an urgent basis; (g) the assault charge Mr ZZ was facing, could, in the event of adverse outcome, have had potential to negatively impact Mr ZZ’s business; (h) Mr ZZ’s privacy had not been breached; (i) the disclosure clause was completed and provided to the franchisee on Mr ZZ’s instructions; (j) the basis on which fees had been deducted, and the authority to do so, was explained to Mr ZZ; 5 (k) s...

6. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 DM expert Bridget Gilbert [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...access pier from the carpark, plus at each perpendicular pier accessed from the Southern Access Pier - a total of 5 security gates. 140. It is likely that the traffic control arm across the entrance to the car park will reinforce this sense of privacy (although I acknowledge that public pedestrian access will be available across the carpark to the Matietie Historic Reserve and Owhanake Bay walkway). 141. Whilst I accept that in longer range views, these elements will be 'lost...

7. MacGregor v Craig (Second Interim Non-Publication Order) [2015] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...application [13] It is not intended to recite at length the grounds set out in the notice of application dated 30 July 2015. The principal points are: [13.1] Ms MacGregor’s purpose in filing the present claim with the Tribunal is to protect her privacy under the confidential terms previously agreed to in mediation with Mr Craig. [13.2] Ms MacGregor relies on the confidentiality obligations in s 85 of the Act and seeks to have those obligations enforced. 4 [13.3] Publication...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 161 O Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Ltd [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...sums said to be owed by him to the defendant, followed. These issues remained unresolved, a number of which form part of the current claim. [50] Mr O’Hagan subsequently laid a complaint with the Police, the Inland Revenue Department and the Privacy Commissioner. It appears that both Inland Revenue and Police closed their files without taking formal action. Constructive dismissal? [51] It is well established that a constructive dismissal may occur where a breach o...

9. LCRO 57/2018 G RC and D RC v YS (30 April 2019) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...ended, Mr YS was required by r 4.4.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the rules) to hand over Mrs RC’s files to Mr G as Mrs RC’s attorney. [17] They stated that “records cannot be withheld on privacy grounds because they may contain information that is adverse to the [attorney], or …may be used against the [attorney]”. In their view “nothing is confidential” to an attorney appointed under an enduring power of attorne...

10. Hill - Otakanini Māori Reservation (2015) 108 Taitokerau MB 76 (108 TTK 76) [pdf, 423 KB]

    ...current trustees, Chris Passell”. The applicant does not set out how they learnt that Mr Passell was responsible. The applicant states that they did approach the Police and requested a copy of the incident report but they refused to provide it for privacy reasons. [117] Once again, there is insufficient evidence to make a finding on this issue. It is not clear how the trustees subsequently discovered that Mr Passell was the person responsible for this incident. This may have bee...