Resources and publications

Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga

Search guidescase notesopinionsreports and other information. Resources and publications can also be searched by date and other options. 

Use the search bar to make your search. Then use the filters to narrow down the results by resource type or topic. 

  • Request for financial information concerning Council’s waste management proposals

    Case notes
    Council waste management activities not commercial—s 7(2)(h) does not apply
  • Request for transport rates, cost and revenues per route

    Case notes
    Cost per route to the Council not protected by s 7(2)(b)(ii)—any prejudice would not be unreasonable—s 7(2)(b)(ii) applies to revenue per route—this would reveal operators’ tender strategies, thereby prejudicing their ability to participate competitively in future tenders
  • Request for copy of winning tender for Lawrence Oliver Park

    Case notes
    Release would enable competitors to anticipate winning tenderer’s strategy in future bids, which would unreasonably prejudice their commercial position—s 7(2)(b)(ii) applies
  • Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over District Council electoral officer

    Case notes
    Jurisdiction—Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over Council electoral officer—electoral expense returns not subject to Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1982
  • Council agreed to purchase land containing toxic residue given that purchasers were unaware of site state

    Case notes
    Prior to availability of a LIM, property owners’ development of their land revealed previous use was illegal toxic waste dump—Council knew this prior to purchase but had taken no action to either assess or remedy the problem as a matter of public safety—Ombudsman concluded the Council had a responsibility to assist the complainants—Council then purchased the land with the intention of declaring it an ‘orphan site’ prior to assessment and clean up if necessary.
  • Local Authority issued a Project Information Memorandum (PIM) unlawfully

    Case notes
    Property developer changed basis of development and obtained new Project Information Memorandum (PIM) containing conditions not prescribed in s 31(2) of the Building Act 1991—complainant considered the contents of the PIM unauthorised as the changes had not been agreed to by purchasers of the owner developing the property and action incurring legal expenses—Ombudsman found PIM not issued lawfully but agreed for Authority to amend the PIM to comply with LGOIMA—complainant offered ex gratia payment in recognition of legal costs incurred