Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd

Last updated

Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd
CourtHuman Rights Review Tribunal
Full case name Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Limited
Decided23 August 2012
Citation[2012] NZHRRT 18
Transcript http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZHRRT/2012/18.html
Keywords
privacy

Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 18 is an important privacy case from the Human Rights Review Tribunal that is mentioned on their website.

Contents

Background

Ms Andrews was in a relationship with Mr Ballantyne. In an apparent sign of generosity, Ballantyne made Andrews a director and a shareholder in his insurance restoration company INS Restorations Limited. Later it turned out Mr Ballantyne’s benevolence, was more to do with the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt, and so legally was unable to be a director of a company until his bankruptcy ceased on 6 August 2007.

In December 2007 Mr Ballantyne made the remark to her that he had removed her as a director of the company and their relationship ended in 2009, which did not seem to end very well, as Mr Ballantyne subsequently won a court judgment against Ms Andrews for $15,000.

On 20 August 2010, Ms Andrews got her lawyers to send INS Restorations a request for all her personal information. Under the Privacy Act, INS had 20 working days to give a reply, however INS did not even give a reply to this legal request. Nor did INS respond to the Privacy Commission’s correspondence either.

When provided with the alleged transfer of shareholding and change of directorship forms, Andrews claimed they were not her signature, with one document having an apparent witness to her signature by a witness in New Zealand when she was outside of the country at the time.

Andrews filed a claim with the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Decision

The day before the hearing, Mr Ballantyne notified the tribunal that he had restored to the company register Ms Andrews’s shareholding and directorship. Despite this, the hearing still took place, and Andrews was awarded $20,000 in damages for injury to feelings.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural justice</span> Concept in UK law

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

The Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT), formerly the Iraqi Special Tribunal and sometimes referred to as the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, is a body established under Iraqi national law to try Iraqi nationals or residents accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or other serious crimes committed between 1968 and 2003. It organized the trial of Saddam Hussein and other members of his Ba'ath Party regime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privacy International</span>

Privacy International (PI) is a UK-based registered charity that defends and promotes the right to privacy across the world. First formed in 1990, registered as a non-profit company in 2002 and as a charity in 2012, PI is based in London. Its current executive director, since 2012, is Dr Gus Hosein.

The Moriarty Tribunal, officially called the Tribunal of Inquiry into certain Payments to Politicians and Related Matters, was an Irish Tribunal of Inquiry established in 1997 into the financial affairs of politicians Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry. It has revealed significant tax evasion by these and other politicians and leading businessmen. As a consequence, the tax authorities have recovered millions of euro in settlements and penalties from many individuals. The final report of the tribunal was expected to be published in mid-January 2010, but was delayed and was published 22 March 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Farah Damji</span> British criminal charged with financial and stalking crimes

Farah Damji, also known as Farah Dan, is a Ugandan-born British convicted criminal with multiple convictions pertaining to fraud and stalking in the United States, South Africa, and United Kingdom. In 2016, Damji was described by The Sunday Times as "a notorious conwoman", and by some other newspapers as "London's most dangerous woman" in 2021.

The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) is one of a number of groups run by neo-Nazi and white supremacist Paul Fromm. Established in 1981, CAFE states that it is committed to the promotion and defense of total freedom of speech, and publishes the Free Speech Monitor ten times a year. Although it began in Ontario, it has also been incorporated in Alberta.

<i>Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that in considering equality rights, comparator groups are needed to demonstrate that one has suffered differential treatment. Courts may reject the rights claimant's view as to what an appropriate comparator group would be.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) was formed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 in the state of Victoria, Australia. As part of the Victorian Justice system the tribunal sits 'below' the Magistrates Court in the court hierarchy. However the tribunal itself is not a court, not possessing any jurisdiction or powers beyond those conferred by statute. VCAT is less formal than a court and helps resolve disputes through mediations, compulsory conferences and formal hearings. The participation of lawyers or other legal representatives is not encouraged in some list areas, substantially reducing the cost of litigation. However some of the list areas will by necessity require parties to have some form of representation.

The Victims Compensation Tribunal of New South Wales is a former tribunal of the Government of New South Wales that was established to determine the amounts that may be awarded to victims of crime for personal injury in New South Wales, a state of Australia. The tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the amount which the Victims Compensation Fund of New South Wales would pay to a victim of crime. This tribunal was unique in Australia in that it did not notify nominated defendants of tribunal hearings and therefore did not hear evidence that may exist from such persons.

The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was active between March 1996 and 31 December 2003, was a judicial body established in Bosnia and Herzegovina within the Annex 6 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

<i>Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc</i>

Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc [2007] ICR 469 is a UK labour law case, concerning sex discrimination and equal pay. It was the largest claim to be lodged in the United Kingdom, but was rejected in the Employment Tribunal and on appeal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an administrative tribunal in Ontario, Canada that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provincial statute that sets out human or civil rights in Ontario prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a number of grounds in certain social areas. It is one of the 13 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario. Any person who believes they have been discriminated against under the Human Rights Code may bring an application to the Tribunal.

<i>McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd</i> 2010 UK court case

McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd[2010] EWCA Civ 880; [2010] IRLR 872; 29 BHRC 249 was an application in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, that a relationship counsellor dismissed for refusing to counsel same sex couples on sexual matters because of his Christian beliefs did not suffer discrimination under the Employment Equality Regulations 2003. The application was heard by Lord Justice Laws, who issued his decision on 29 April 2010 refusing the application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Investigatory Powers Tribunal</span> State surveillance tribunal in the United Kingdom

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is a first-instance tribunal and superior court of record in the United Kingdom. It is primarily an inquisitorial court.

<i>NEJ v Wood</i>

NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) ([2011] EWHC 1972 (QB) is a 2011 High Court case involving issues of privacy in English law.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a statutorily established institution fundamental to the application, determination and up holding of human rights in New Zealand. The tribunal is established under the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993. The Human Rights Review Tribunal is one of two key human rights bodies in New Zealand and provides the mechanism for adjudication and resolution of human rights issues. The jurisdiction of the tribunal extends to cover matters from domestic human rights law, principles given in the Privacy Act 1993 and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. Complaints may be bought by the Director of Human Rights or where it is deemed not appropriate to do so, a citizen may proceed with a claim at their own cost. The tribunal has the power to grant a wide range of remedies and in making a determination, is not required to give effect to technicalities but rather, the substantial merits of the case. The Human Rights Review tribunal also holds special status within the array of tribunals in New Zealands domestic legal system, with a far more significant legal jurisdiction than other inter partes tribunals. This special status reflects the fact that decisions of the tribunal can have substantial political and societal implications.

<i>Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance Ltd</i>

Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 5 was an important case on privacy law in New Zealand that was decided in the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe is a UK employment and discrimination case brought by Maya Forstater against the Center for Global Development (CGD). The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that gender-critical views are capable of being protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal further clarified that this finding does not mean that people with gender-critical beliefs can express them in a manner that discriminates against trans people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2021 takeover of Newcastle United F.C.</span> Takeover of Newcastle United Football Club

The 2021 takeover of Newcastle United F.C. by a consortium of the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), PCP Capital Partners, and the Reuben Brothers was a takeover proceeding that commenced in April 2020 and was successfully concluded in October 2021.

References