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

8 Resources Show all

  • Request for Hazardous Activities and Industries List

    Opinions
    On 4 September 2008 Mr Sharpe sought from the Council “details of the 3099 ‘Unverified HAIL’ sites in the region, i.e. their location and the activity/industry that are known to have the potential to cause land contamination”.

  • 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

  • Request for copy of competitor’s licence deed

    Case notes
    Ferry service operator requested copy of competitor’s licence deed from ferry terminal facility owner—request refused under s 7(2)(b)(ii) LGOIMA on basis release would prejudice commercial position of licensee—licensee argued that it had originally negotiated licence in atmosphere of complete commercial confidentiality with then port authority at a time when neither party was subject to LGOIMA—Ombudsman considered s 8 LGOIMA and s 75 Local Government Act 2002—neither Act contains transitional or saving provisions concerning information held by private bodies that later become subject to this legislation—request for such information should therefore be considered in same way as any other LGOIMA request—Ombudsman found no commercial prejudice likely and strong public interest in release—facility owner released information.

  • Request for land exchange agreement and valuations

    Case notes
    NZDF exchanging land with private land owners under the Public Works Act 1981—OIA request made to NZDF for copies of the exchange agreement and valuations of respective properties—NZDF refused under s 9(2)(i)—Ombudsman noted majority of information in standard form and already publicly available—unable to identify ‘commercial activity’—rather transaction was for defence purposes within the terms of the Public Works Act—NZDF released the information subject to the withholding of some information under s 9(2)(j) and s 9(2)(b)(ii)

  • Request by TVNZ for names of companies providing Department of Social Welfare with transcripts or videos of TVNZ programmes

    Case notes
    Risk of litigation is not an unreasonable prejudice—public interest in release of information enabling pursuit of legal rights and remedies

  • Request for Crown Health Enterprise Business Plans

    Case notes
    Request for Crown Health Enterprise Business Plans—request refused on commercial grounds—some information protected by ss 9(2)(i) and 9(2)(j)—public interest in disclosure substantially met by release of balance of plans

  • Request for the contract regarding sale of Railway houses

    Case notes
    Request for copy of contract between NZRC and Stone Key Investments Ltd regarding sale of railway houses—refused as ‘commercially confidential’—contract document itself was not simply a standard form Agreement for Sale and Purchase with price and special conditions added, but was a specially drafted document which reflected the negotiating positions adopted by both parties—release would unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of Stone Key Investments—s 9(2)(b)(ii)—release was so likely to ‘prejudice or disadvantage’ the Corporation in future sales of surplus land that it was necessary to withhold the information at issue—s 9(2)(i)—sale agreement retained two key factors of the Corporation’s previous sales policy relating to its obligations as a ‘good employer’—public interest in disclosure of the manner in which those undertakings had been incorporated into the contract—public interest in disclosure of information enabling an assessment to be made of whether the Corporation had acted responsibly and obtained a ‘fair market price’—written summary released