The highly anticipated Privacy Bill was introduced to Parliament in March 2018 (the Bill) and is due to come into effect in July 2019. It will replace the Privacy Act 1993 and aims to modernise New Zealand’s privacy law framework, in accordance with international laws such as the European General Data Protection Regulation 2018.
The highly anticipated Privacy Bill was introduced to Parliament in March 2018 and is due to come into effect in July 2019. It will replace the Privacy Act 1993 and aims to bring New Zealand’s privacy law framework up-to-date with the digital society we live in. The reform also brings New Zealand in line with international laws, including the European General Data Protection Regulation.
We live in a world in which smartphones can track our steps and location, sense light, temperature, and our voice. If cell phone privacy even exists, does a law requiring us to provide access to our cell phones cross the line?
IAG has successfully appealed the High Court’s decision in Robin v IAG  NZHC 204. IAG applied to join four other parties as defendants to the proceeding on the basis that each party was involved in the repair work and owed a duty of care to Ms Robin.
Deciding who is responsible for defective earthquake repairs is a common predicament for many homeowners. The difficulty stems from the involvement of several parties in the earthquake repairs. These may include the Earthquake Commission, a private insurer, brokers, a loss adjuster, engineers, contractors and subcontractors.
In New Zealand, you have a right to go to court and represent yourself; self-representation procures access to the courts. But, whether it provides access to justice is another question.
In Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance NZ Limited  NZSC 158 the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that a signed settlement agreement was binding on the parties, where the insured party asserts it was operating under a mistake over its entitlement under the policy.
On appeal from the Court of Appeal, Prattley had (again) sought to set aside the settlement agreement it signed with its insurer Vero, on the basis that both it and Vero entered the settlement under a common mistake as to the correct measure of indemnity under the policy.
The UK Supreme Court has now clarified an uncertain area of law regarding deceit and misrepresentation in the context of settlement agreements, where fraud is suspected: Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company plc  UKSC 48.