Open main menu Close main menu
Search by keyword

Resources and publications

Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga

Search guides, case notes, opinions, reports 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. 

More information about the resource categories on this page
Search by keyword

27 Resources Show all

  • Local Authority unreasonably failed to consult with residents about building relocation

    Case notes
    Local Authority allowed relocation of building without providing for adequate consultation process with the local community—Ombudsman upheld complaint

  • Request for information about a Department’s employment operations

    Case notes
    Pre-cast concrete operation is a commercial activity—s 9(2)(i) applies

  • Request for salvage plan relating to MV Rena

    Case notes
    Revealing salvage company’s detailed methodology would give other companies a competitive advantage in future tenders, which would be likely unreasonably to prejudice its commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) applies

  • 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

  • Investigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to the provision, access and availability of prisoner health services

    Systemic investigations
    This own motion report, unlike others we have undertaken, did not arise from specific incidents within the prison system, nor from the number of complaints we receive from prisoners.  Our investigation has identified that prisoners have reasonable access to Health Services and generally they receive healthcare equivalent to members of the wider community. However, the service is not without its problems and in the future, it may not be able to meet the healthcare needs of such a diverse population effectively.

  • 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 tender scores for successful tenderer

    Case notes
    Release of tender scores would not be likely unreasonably to prejudice successful tenderer’s commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not apply

  • 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

  • Local Authority unreasonably failed to provide information on LIM

    Case notes
    Local Authority failed to provide information in a Land Information Memorandum(LIM) about outstanding capital contribution for a sewer—Ombudsman considered Council acted unreasonably—Council made payment to complainant in resolution of complaint

  • 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

  • Request for charitable trust’s funding application

    Case notes
    Trust does not have a commercial position—even if it did, release of the information would not be likely unreasonably to prejudice it—the trust has no competitors, and is very different to other organisations in terms of its size, nature of operations and services¬—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not apply

  • Request for names of tenderers and prices

    Case notes
    Release of names and total prices, as opposed to detailed pricing or market strategy, would not be likely unreasonably to prejudice the tenderers’ commercial positions—public interest in release to promote integrity and transparency of the tender process—s 7(2)(b)(ii) does not apply

  • Local Authority unreasonable to review peppercorn rental without prior notice

    Case notes
    Peppercorn rent paid to Council for encroachment licence fee for garage—Council increased amount—inconsistent process—Ombudsman viewed increase unreasonable because of lack of notice

  • Local Authority and property vendors both responsible for checking lease agreement

    Case notes
    Local Authority—unreasonable not to have contacted previous lease holder three months after licence to occupy had expired and before agreeing to lease land to another person—Local Authority agrees to apologise to complainant

  • Local Authority not unreasonable to allow retrospective consents on building already constructed

    Case notes
    Local Authority issued an abatement notice to developers—Ombudsman concludes it was reasonable for Council to allow building to proceed while consent process completed—Council acted in accordance with the Resource Management Act (RMA)

  • Local Authority unreasonably failed to consider planning implications for building addition

    Case notes
    Local Authority unreasonable to require the complainant to obtain a resource consent for completed building work, which had been authorised by the Council three years previously

  • Regional Authority’s tender process inadequate

    Case notes
    Regional Council’s tender processes unreasonable, although the tender was incomplete, the Council officer contacted complainant after close of tenders to clarify his tender—having allowed an incomplete tender to proceed and provided complainant with an opportunity to clarify the tender, it was unreasonable for that clarification not to have been provided to the Tender Committee

  • Request for amount of Government Securities beneficially owned by three major banks

    Case notes
    Amount of government securities beneficially owned by three major banks as at the end of January 1990—information supplied pursuant to s 36 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989—importance of timely and accurate supply of data—s 9(2)(ba)(i) applied—holdings of Government Stock at specified dates important indicator of liquidity—s 9(2)(b)(ii) applied—public interest in protecting the investing public addressed by the provisions of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act relating to prudential supervision

  • Request for sale and purchase agreement and deed of lease

    Case notes
    Request for NZ Post property agreements—ss 9(2)(b)(ii), 9(2)(i) and 9(2)(j)—no good reason to withhold either the deed of lease or the agreement for sale and purchase.

  • Request by unsuccessful tenderer for copies of tender submissions for removal of bodies

    Case notes
    Format of the tender in this particular case was such that disclosure of the prices would be likely to prejudice the successful tenderer’s commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) applies

  • Request for price of successful tender to supply disposable syringes and needles

    Case notes
    Sections 9(2)(b)(ii) and 9(2)(i) do not apply—public interest in release to promote integrity and transparency of tender process

  • Request for quotation submitted by a Government Department

    Case notes
    Requester sought quotation information—amount apportioned by the department as royalties and copyright charges formed part of the department’s marketing and pricing strategy within a competitive market—also in circumstances of this case release of quotation would enable a calculation of how the quotation was made up

  • Request for price of successful tender to supply medical product

    Case notes
    No unreasonable prejudice—public interest in release to promote integrity and transparency of tender process

  • Request for amounts paid to private sector consultants for asset sale advice

    Case notes
    Request for amounts paid to private sector consultants for asset sale advice—initially refused under ss 9(2)(b)(ii) and 9(2)(j)—not possible to deduce individual fee structures or methodology from the information at issue—s 9(2)(b)(ii) did not apply—information at issue would be, at most, of a background nature (since it related to a different transaction) and was at a high level of generality—s 9(2)(j) did not apply—while the information might be considered by firms in deciding whether to pitch a proposal for a particular advisory contract, s 9(2)(i) not satisfied—argument that disclosure may result in a reduction in number of advisors willing to undertake Government work not persuasive due to the vigorous competition for the contracts—strong public interest in release to permit scrutiny of the level of expenditure and questions to be asked about the use of advisers and the decisions that have been taken

  • Request for communications between Taranaki Harbours Board and Topside Construction Joint Venture

    Case notes
    Request for communications between Harbours Board and TCJV concerning difficulties in the sharing of costs of preparatory work on consents for a reclamation—Board ‘neither confirms nor denies the existence or non-existence’ of the information—reference to s 7(2)(b)—Ombudsman not satisfied that confirming the existence of information relevant to the request would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of TCJV—Board continued to refuse the request under s 7(2)(i)—good reason to withhold only some of the information—Board agreed to release information and to reconsider the balance when the negotiations over the dispute had been completed

  • Request for gradings awarded to funding applications to Foundation for Research, Science and Technology

    Case notes
    Request for gradings of funding applications to Foundation for Research, Science and Technology—information withheld under s 9(2)(b)(ii)—commercial position of applicants would be prejudiced by identifying grades awarded to each application—Foundation’s agreement to provide numbers of gradings without identifying information adequately met the public interest in disclosure

  • Local Authority should share project overrun costs with residents

    Case notes
    Complaint concerned water supply and sewerage scheme which involved 50/50 cost sharing between residents and Council—cost overrun occurred and residents asked to pay the entire overrun—Ombudsman considered this unreasonable, particularly as the residents not informed about the overrun and that the overrun amount should be shared 50/50 between Council and residents—Council accepted this view