Bethany Entwistle

BA, LLB (Hons), Associate

Bethany is an associate based in the Christchurch office, working in the national Dispute Resolution team supporting Emily Walton and Richard Hern.  Her practice has a focus on privacy, insurance, and contract law. She also has a particular interest in intellectual property law.
She provides advice to a wide range of clients with interest in intellectual property and privacy matters; including policy drafting, and insurers and policyholders in relation to insurance disputes.  

Bethany has experience in Court of Appeal, High Court and District Court proceedings, as well as in the newly established Canterbury Earthquake Insurance Tribunal and Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service.

Bethany is also currently studying canon law.

Recent Articles


Act Amendment a Game Changer for Victims of Revenge Pornography

Recently Parliament enacted the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Act 2022 in response a form of sexual exploitation, often referred to as “revenge pornography”.

Keep reading...


COVID-19: Privacy in employment

Increasingly, employers are considering the implications of vaccines and how their workforce will be affected. Some are questioning whether they can make vaccines compulsory or impose different working conditions for unvaccinated employees. Others question whether they have a right to ask an employee about their vaccination status at all. These questions raise several privacy and legal issues which we address in this article.

Keep reading...


COVID-19: When matters of privacy and public health clash - which prevails?

Following the recent announcement that saline solution had been administered to some New Zealanders instead of the COVID-19 vaccine, Associate, Bethany Entwistle discusses the considerations for Government on disclosure of information and what constitutes a breach of the Privacy Act.

Keep reading...


“Mandatory” Contact Tracing and Privacy - Is My Personal Information Protected?

Mandatory record-keeping is set to become effective seven days after a change in alert level settings allow more businesses to open. Everyone aged 12 and over must scan or manually sign-in to cafes, restaurants, bars casinos, concerts, aged care facilities, health care facilities barbers, exercise facilities, nightclubs, libraries, courts, local and central government agencies and social service providers who have a customer service counter.

Keep reading...


Privacy Act 2020 – Are you ready?

New Zealand’s highly anticipated Privacy Act will commence on 1 December 2020, replacing the Privacy Act 1993.

Keep reading...


Protecting your business from cyber risks during COVID-19

COVID-19 has created unprecedented working situations for businesses. Many are rapidly trying to grapple with their employees working from home. Cybercriminals are using these unprecedented times as an opportunity for online scams and attacks. Businesses need to be hypervigilant.

Keep reading...


COVID-19 Working remotely and maintaining privacy obligations

COVID-19 has created unprecedented working situations, with many employees being required to work from home at short notice. This article sets out some simple practices that you and your employees can implement at home, to ensure privacy standards are maintained.

Keep reading...


Privacy Bill 2018 – new privacy requirements – is your company compliant?

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.

Keep reading...


Introduction to the Privacy Bill 2018 – mandatory reporting of privacy breaches

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.

Keep reading...


Would you rather give up your password or pay $5000? A review of the Customs and Excise Act 2018

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?

Keep reading...


Defective earthquake repairs: successful appeal of Robin v IAG

IAG has successfully appealed the High Court’s decision in Robin v IAG [2018] 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.

Keep reading...


Privacy law shake-up! What does the EU General Data Protection Regulation mean for your company?

Unless you’re willing to pay a fine of up to 4% of your company's annual global turnover or €20 million for failing to comply with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it's time to review your company's privacy policy and practices.

Keep reading...


Defective earthquake repairs: who should you sue?

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.

Keep reading...


Is self-representation a good idea?

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.

Keep reading...


Reopening an insurance cash settlement agreement? Supreme Court says no!

In Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance NZ Limited [2016] 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.

Keep reading...


Can a settlement agreement ever be set aside?

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 [2016] UKSC 48.

Keep reading...

Share this page on social media:

Enter security code:
 Security code


Wynn Williams Client Toolkit

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with stylesheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so. The latest version of Firefox, Safari or Google Chrome will work best if you're after a new browser.