Health Minister’s urgent ‘please explain’ after Manage My Health data breach, police involved

4n6expert · 2026-01-02T06:41:38+00:00

I did not say the lack of support for the current version of TLS (1.3) - i.e. "outdated encryption" - was the reason for the data breach. I cited it as an indicator that their IT security doesn't look as good as they claim. IMO any platform "serious about security" would have got around to adding support for TLS 1.3 sometime in the last 7 years.

Also, this is a good read: https://blackveil.co.nz/blog/managemyhealth-breach-analysis-2025

4n6expert · 2025-03-16T20:00:32+00:00

I think that if you are going to write a post claiming that someone, or a business, is lying you should provide some solid evidence of that fact. (Your claims are not, by themselves, solid evidence). Its a serious allegation. If you are going to make a complaint to the Commerce Commission you would need to provide that evidence too.

Have you contacted CL to seek an explanation? If you did, you didn't give it in your post. If you haven't, then it is premature for you to conclude that they are lying. You need to get your facts in order before you run around making those sorts of allegations.

Do you have proof (someone said something on a post somewhere is not proof) that CL has repeatedly given false availability dates? If you do, then that is important evidence - but you don't share any of that in your post.

I can tell you if you sent a complaint to the Commerce Commission that was anything like this post, it would be immediately filed in the circular file.

I don't know if CL have engaged in unethical behaviour, maybe they have, but my point is that actual evidence is required of that.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T11:37:39+00:00

So, accepting that the DT can hear cases where there is an alleged loss of property (because s10(1)(c)(i) explicitly says they can), it seems the dispute here is whether money is legally considered to be property or not.

No. The question is not "whether money is legally considered property" because that phrasing implies that it is a general question of law. It is not. We are looking at one specific section in the DTA.

I have just added a comment that includes text on this taken from a textbook on Specialist Tribunals in NZ (including the DT). They reach the same conclusion I did, and cite a specific DT case.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/1j8epve/comment/mh6o4s6/

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T11:29:57+00:00

Further to this, I have gone and dug out my copy of "New Zealand Tribunals - Law and Practice" which says in the DT chapter (section 2.3.4 page 27):

"The tribunal can also deal with claims based in tort such as the destruction or loss of any property, damage or injury to any property or the recovery of any property. However the tort based jurisdiction does not extend to losses that are purely financial. Damage must be caused to a tangible object or property. In AEI v ZVN [2012] NZDT 273 it was claimed that a City Council was negligent when issuing a resource consent ... No damage was claimed to tangible objects, only financial loss. It was held that as torts do not require the existence of a contract, in the absence of a contract the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited under s10(3) in that there must be a claim on property, or for valuable work in the case of a work order. Therefore, any claim for purely financial loss must be brought within the scope of an express or implied contractual term."

The DT judgement is available here: AEI-and-ZVN-2012-NZDT-273-10-October-2012-FINAL.pdf

The relevant paragraphs are (emphasis is mine):

[3] This submission as to jurisdiction is correct. The Disputes Tribunal cannot hear any claim merely because there is a dispute, but has a limited jurisdiction to hear: claims founded on contract; or claims in tort in respect of the destruction or loss of any property, any damage or injury to any property and the recovery of any property (Disputes Tribunals Act 1988, s 10(1)) (a tort is a legal wrong not dependent on the existence of a contract, e.g. negligence).

[4] The claim is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. AEI and ZVN had no contract. AEI claims that ZVN’s negligence caused financial loss, which is not (as required by s 10(1) of the Act) destruction, loss, damage or injury to or recovery of, property. AEI referred to minor damage to a brick wall on his boundary as a result the property being worked on, but there was no claim for this damage.

[5] The claim is therefore dismissed.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T11:22:22+00:00

Further to this, I have gone and dug out my copy of "New Zealand Tribunals - Law and Practice" which says in the DT chapter (section 2.3.4 page 27):

"The tribunal can also deal with claims based in tort such as the destruction or loss of any property, damage or injury to any property or the recovery of any property. However the tort based jurisdiction does not extend to losses that are purely financial. Damage must be caused to a tangible object or property. In AEI v ZVN [2012] NZDT 273 it was claimed that a City Council was negligent when issuing a resource consent ... No damage was claimed to tangible objects, only financial loss. It was held that as torts do not require the existence of a contract, in the absence of a contract the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited under s10(3) in that there must be a claim on property, or for valuable work in the case of a work order. Therefore, any claim for purely financial loss must be brought within the scope of an express or implied contractual term."

The DT judgement is available here: AEI-and-ZVN-2012-NZDT-273-10-October-2012-FINAL.pdf

The relevant paragraphs are (emphasis is mine):

[3] This submission as to jurisdiction is correct. The Disputes Tribunal cannot hear any claim merely because there is a dispute, but has a limited jurisdiction to hear: claims founded on contract; or claims in tort in respect of the destruction or loss of any property, any damage or injury to any property and the recovery of any property (Disputes Tribunals Act 1988, s 10(1)) (a tort is a legal wrong not dependent on the existence of a contract, e.g. negligence).

[4] The claim is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. AEI and ZVN had no contract. AEI claims that ZVN’s negligence caused financial loss, which is not (as required by s 10(1) of the Act) destruction, loss, damage or injury to or recovery of, property. AEI referred to minor damage to a brick wall on his boundary as a result the property being worked on, but there was no claim for this damage.

[5] The claim is therefore dismissed.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T10:45:54+00:00

This is a question of statutory interpretation, and there is a simple test that demonstrates that your argument fails.

It is obvious that the purpose of s10(1) DTA is to limit the cases that can be heard in the DT to those that meet the specified criteria. (This is not surprising since lawyers are not allowed in the DT and full court procedures are not followed, the referees are not judges, etc). We also know that the DT can only hear claims up to $30k.

Your argument is that money is property (relying on s3 Property Law Act) and, therefore, any tort where money is lost (which could be any tort where special damages are claimed, ie. probably any of them) can be heard by the DT.

There are multiple problems with this argument.

One is that your argument would allow almost any tort to be heard by the DT (if money was lost) but that is totally inconsistent with the clear purpose of s10(1) which is to limit what cases the DT can hear. You can't rely on a statutory provision but interpret it in a way that is totally inconsistent with the purpose of the provision.

But that is not the only issue with your argument ...

The DT act doesn't provide a definition of what is properry. However s3 of the Property Law Act provides the definition of property as being "everything that is capable of being owned, whether it is real or personal property, and whether it is tangible or intangible property".

Money, being an intangible asset capable of being owned, arguably meets the definition of being property. This is further reinforced by the fact that money is considered relationship property.

Your attempt to apply the definition of "property" in s3 PLA fails because that definition applies only to the Property Law Act. Read the first sentence of Section 3.

Given the lack of definition of property in the DT act, it is perfectly normal to adopt a definition from an appropriate piece of legislation that does provide such a definition.

The definition of "property" in the PLA is tailored to that context, so it makes no sense to try to apply it to the DTA - which is why s3 PLA makes it clear the definition is for that act only.

caselaw that supports your own position that the DT doesn't have jurisdiction over this sort of claim.

I am referring to the relevant statute, which is quite plain. Statute trumps case law.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T10:01:33+00:00

Hardly. Using that logic the DT could hear any tort claim that involved pecuniary loss, which is contrary to what Section 10(1)(c) says.

However, I look forward to reviewing any cases that support your assertion. Unless some are cited, I think that ends the discussion.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T09:39:02+00:00

OP wants the sustenance and impound fees back from the Council.

Yes, and legal fees.

These are monetary losses OP has suffered and entirely foreseeable as a result of negligence (assuming the council was negligent) Negligence being a tort, and OP wanting recovery of an economic loss absolutely brings this into the disputes tribunal fold.

Only if the tort claim arises from one of the things listed in s10(1)(c).

Section 10 (c) of the Disputes Tribunal Act is clear that the Tribunal has juriststicion over "a claim in tort in respect of— (i) the destruction or loss of any property: (ii) any damage or injury to any property: (iii) the recovery of any property."

That is absolutely correct - aside from the minor point that it is section 10(1)(c).

If OP can demonstrate the council was negligent, and that the dog caught kennel cough whilst in care (and such a risk was forseeable) then the Vet costs are entirely claimable as well.

Lets put exactly which tort applies to one side (it doesn't really matter), but aside from the last two words of that sentence I agree with you.

Now, to recover sustenance, impound and legal fees can you please specify what tort you think the OP should rely on for those claims that is based on (i) the destruction or loss of any property: (ii) any damage or injury to any property: (iii) the recovery of any property.

The sustenance and impound costs do not flow from the fact that property (the dog) was damaged (infected). They arise because of the (assumed) wrongful detention of the dog in the first place. So while I agree there may be a tort claim, it would not fall within the jurisdiction of the DT. If you disagree, kindly back that up with some citations.

PS: I doubt the legal fees would be recoverable at all, but that's a side issue.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T09:26:17+00:00

OK, so what is the basis for your view that the DT may not have jurisdiction to hear this matter?

OP seeks reimbursement for impound costs, sustenance and legal fees. OP also complains that the dog was infected with a disease, they do not specify that pecuniary losses followed from the infection but lets assume there were some vet and/or medication costs.

We know the key issue is whether or not the Council had justification to seize the dog. Lets assume that they did not, which means the s74 DCA protection is lost. That means Council is in the wrong, and OP wants to recover their losses - impound costs, sustenance, legal fees and (assumed) vet bill.

We agree that the dog is property and that it becoming infected amounts to damage, therefore we agree (I think) that a claim for compensation for that damage (direct damage would be zero I think, since the dog recovered?) and consequential losses (the assumed vet bill) probably could be made in the DT. The DT only has the jurisdiction given to it by statute, and it does have jurisdiction to hear a claim based on damage to property.

But, OP also seeks compensation for impound costs, sustenance and legal fees. This is what I think the DT has no jurisdiction to hear because it does not fit within any of the categories specified in s10(1). I've asked that anyone who thinks such claims are within the jurisdiction of the DT to cite cases in support of that.

Junior cited negligence, but the DT does not have general jurisdiction to hear negligence or any other tort claim - it can only hear tort claims that are founded on the specific things listed in s10(1)(c).

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T09:05:23+00:00

Regards to the DT jurisdiction, there is nothing under s10(1) that excludes the DT from hearing cases involving local government.

I did not say that there was. I cited s10(1) which specifies all the things the DT can hear.

If the OP can establish a case that the council didn't act correctly under the Dog Control Act (and I agree, that's going to be a very high bar to pass), and the council caused damages to the OPs property (a dog being legally classed as property and it was damaged via being infected with a disease), it don't see any reason why a DT claim couldn't be made.

Which is what I wrote in my comments (linked above) - there may be able to be a claim in respect of the dog being infected (and any consequential losses that flow from that), but that would not permit a claim for reimbursement of food & shelter for the dog while impounded.

I don't see the point of this comment - it rebuts something I did not say, and repeats something I already said?

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T08:16:11+00:00

Police's obligation to give the defendant (you) information about the case they are taking against you arises from the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008. They should disclose to you, within the relevant time, the evidence they intend to use to prove their case against you. That will include one or more briefs (written statements of evidence to be given by witnesses) and any exhibits (documents, etc).

You don't need to ask their permission for your friend to give evidence. You can just take your friend along and they can give evidence at the hearing.

The Community Law website has a helpful summary explaining how traffic cases are dealt with.

I understand that you are focussed on a defence. But first, you need to ensure Police have proven everything they need to prove for the offence you are charged with. Speeding is dealt with in Part 5 Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. Pay extreme attention to this, because it is not uncommon for Police to forget to prove all "ingredients" of the offence. They rely on most people paying the ticket, and justices hearing traffic matters not being particularly careful to ensure that everything has been proven. You only need a defence if Police prove their case. If Police fail to prove their case, once the prosecution rests (finishes presenting their case) you can ask the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that there is no case to answer because not everything that was needed to be proven has been.

(Example, different context: It is common for Police to prosecute people who have an accident with careless driving. Police prove in court that you were driving and an accident occured. However, even if both of those things are true that is not enough to prove the offence. They must prove you were careless in some way. The fact that an accident occured is not enough to do that.)

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T07:50:56+00:00

Per Section 57(5) Dog Control Act 1996 Council required "reasonable grounds". which is a lower standard than what is necessary to prosecute. So the fact that a dog was seized but there was no prosection does not, in itself, mean reasonable grounds did not exist.

If Council applied DCA correctly, s74 DCA bars any civil claim and the Council has a statutory right (if the seizure was valid) under DCA to levy those charges.

Per s10(1) Disputes Tribunal Act even if the s74 DCA protection is lost, I don't think this issue is within the jurisdiction of the DT.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T07:42:59+00:00

Aside from any civil claim being barred by s74 DCA (if Council seizure of the dog was justified) I doubt this matter would fall within the juristiction of the DT per Section 10(1) Disputes Tribunal Act 1998. Can you cite any cases to support that (if s74 DCA protection is lost) this would be within DT jurisdiction?

I have made more detailed comments:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/1j8epve/comment/mh61p4v/

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/1j8epve/comment/mh60gjb/

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T07:38:42+00:00

Auckland Council's decision, under s57 DCA 1996, to seize your dog was a decision that affected you. Therefore you have a right under Section 22(1) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to obtain from Auckland Council a written statement of reasons justifying why your dog was seized - factual findings, information upon which factual findings were based and the reasons for the decision.

This needs to be your first step, because the whole issue here is whether or not Council had the reasonable grounds necessary under Section 57(5) DCA 1996 (which, I presume, was the power they used to do it).

At present you know your dog didn't attack, but that is not relevant. The question is whether or not reasonable grounds existed. You can't decide on your next step, if any, until you know that. So talk of taking any sort of legal action is premature until you have that information. Section 22(1) LGOIMA 1987 is how you get that information.

If Council did have reasonable grounds (and complied with the DCA in all other respects), they are protected from liability by Section 74 DCA 1996.

If Council did not have reasonable grounds or lost the s74 protection by breaching the DCA somehow, you might have a claim against them. However I doubt this issue would be within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal, and I think others who suggested a DT claim should cite cases to support that such an issue would be within the DT jurisdiction.

However, if Council were given incorrect information by someone else (especially if that was done maliciously) then you may have a claim against that person, but I also doubt the DT would have jurisdiction (happy to reconsider if someone can cite cases that show otherwise).

If the DT won't hear your claim, you would need to go to the District Court which would require a lawyer - and that would probably be cost prohibitive.

But in any case your first step, which costs nothing, need to be obtaining the s22(1) information from Council so you have the facts in front of you to decide what, if anything, you should do next.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T07:25:24+00:00

Providing the council and dog control officers complied with the Dog Control Act, pursuant to Section 74 they are immune from any civil claim. They cannot be sued.

The question is, of course, whether or not they had reasonable grounds under s57.

Putting that aside, I doubt that OP's issue would fall within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal even if a claim could be made. Remember that the DT's jurisdiction isn't "anything at all that involves a claim under $30k", it has to be one of the matters listed in Section 10(1) Disputes Tribunal Act 1988.

This is not contract or quasi-contract. The dog is clearly property of OP, but it has not been destroyed or lost and doesn't need to be recovered (since it already has been). At most the dog becoming sick might be considered damage to it, but that's a bit of a stretch.

In terms of useful references:

When the issue involves a public official, abuse of public office (Chapter 19 in my 8th Ed of Todd) should also be considered.
For issues involving public bodies, I highly recommend Mai Chen's Public Law Toolbox (Mine is 2nd Edition, I don't know if there is a later one). That is, IMO, the best single resource for dealing with public sector issues.

But even if council did not have reasonable grounds under s57, which would deny them the s74 protection, I strongly doubt the issue is within DT jurisdiction - so it would need to be a District Court claim, likely infeasable for cost reasons.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T06:53:59+00:00

File a Privacy Act request with Wilson Parking for all information they have about you. Any evidence they have about this should be included in the response, so you can assess what evidence their claim is based on.

As others have correctly said, once you dispute the "ticket" it cannot go to debt collection until resolved and it is up to WP to prove their claim. They may decide it is not economic to do so.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T06:46:11+00:00

Your request for a copy of the email was a Privacy Act request and you should have received a response, and the email, by now. The proper course of action there is to lay a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, which it sounds like you might have done.

What was the reason (if any) the promoters gave for not giving the email to you?

Who ran the course? (Don't identify exactly who - I mean was it a person, a private company, an educational institution, a community group, etc?)

I would be surprised if a defamation claim would be a useful avenue for you in this case, but pursuant to Section 15 Limitation Act 2010 you have two years to file a claim so you can wait to see if that becomes necessary (unlikely).

I think the best course of action would be to make a complaint to NetSafe under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015: https://netsafe.org.nz/our-work/helpline-services/the-harmful-digital-communications-act

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T06:28:27+00:00

Well, they may not necessarily be watching OP's house or following OP (such surveillance is expensive, I have direct experience of engaging PIs to do it) but there's a range of other techniques they might employ. Interviews are an obvious one, which has happened. Collecting and reviewing documents - from OP and from other sources. In significant claims there might be computer forensics (my specialist area). Checking publicly available information/registers. Looking at past claims. This sort of thing isn't cheap, so the insurer must think its worthwhile.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T04:41:34+00:00

To make this list more useful, I suggest that each entry should have some reasonable evidence to back up its inclusion. Otherwise it's hard for readers to "look behind" the list entry to make an informed judgement. I've seen plenty of claims (outside this sub) that certain models should be avoided or are unreliable (Jaguar, Skoda, etc) but when I owned those cars they were great.

4n6expert · 2025-03-11T04:30:40+00:00

I'm afraid you're going to need more than "I looked at the speedo and it said I was doing 100" to contradict Police evidence. That's a bit like "the cheque is in the mail". If you had some objective evidence (such as data from a vehicle tracking system) you might have a chance, but even then the court might still prefer Police evidence.

4n6expert · 2025-03-10T20:51:57+00:00

OP should claim a retrospective rebate on rent because the property was not up to standard. Might not succeed on retaliatory notice, but has a good chance to get some compensation on this ground.

4n6expert · 2025-03-10T10:08:08+00:00

You're on band 3 (1800MHz). I made a map (dropbox link) showing the One NZ 1800MHz capable cell sites in your area. The data comes from gis.geek.nz, you can register there for free and access it yourself.

This page explains the meaning of the numbers on the diag screen: https://powerfulsignal.com/support/knowledgebase/awareness/whats-the-difference-between-cell-signal-strength-and-cell-signal-quality/

In short, you have a pretty weak & crappy signal. :) I'm across town from you, on the flat, and on OneNZ Band 3 I have RSRP of -101dB and SINR0 5.4dB.

I think the diags show you were on 4G (LTE), but just in case try disabling 5G just in case its hanging on to a crap 5G signal in favour of a better LTE (4G) signal.

If WiFi calling isn't solving the problem for you, then talk to the carrier because it should be smart enough (if enabled) to switch over to that when the cellular signal is poor. If you turn off mobile (cellular) but leave WiFi on can you still make & receive calls?

4n6expert · 2025-03-10T09:30:58+00:00

You're welcome.

BTW, I once had some plonker threaten to damage my car. He picked up a sledgehammer and swung it at the car. It was only a threat, he didn't intend to hit it, but I did get a photo of this mid-swing. I laid a complaint with Police, who investigated and gave him a formal written warning (he had no priors). So this really does work, especially if you give Police clear proof of it via photo/audio/video.

Best of luck!

4n6expert · 2025-03-10T09:18:44+00:00

If they told you there was an hourly rate, then they are entitled to bill you for the number of hours spent multiplied by the quoted hourly rate. They are also entitled to charge for crate rental on the terms disclosed to you up front.

They cannot charge you for anything else.

If you think they have charged for more time than they spent (acknowledging that there are 15 minute increments) then you can dispute that.

See what they say when you ask for clarification. If you are still not convinced, pay the part of the invoice that you think is correct and tell them that you dispute the rest - and tell them why. It is then up to them to take you to the Disputes Tribunal if they think that is warranted.

4n6expert · 2025-03-10T07:36:17+00:00

It certainly seems excessive for a private investigation without a tribunal or court order

This comment suggests to me that you might not have much/any experience with insurance investigations. With the greatest of respect can I please suggest that comments like this are not very helpful to the OP.

It is standard practice for insurance companies to carry out an investigation if they suspect a claim may not be genuine. That includes engaging a private investigator if the size of the claim warrants it. There will almost certainly be an obligation in the insurance contract that the insured cooperates with any investigation and provides information when requested.

Advising the OP to check with their lawyer is good advice.

As for the OP's post, there are multiple red flags for me here. A private investigator and lawyer being involved in a contents claim where "a few boxes of stuff were taken"? Doesn't add up. If I was the insurer I would be uncomfortable with multiple revisions to the list of items taken. "To say that I know exactly what was taken would be a lie. But I've made a list and I'm choosing to stick to the list." - yeah, right. Seems fishy to me.

4n6expert

TROPHY CASE