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

35 Resources Show all

  • Request for draft ‘Alternatives Paper’ prepared by consultants on CBD rail link

    Case notes
    Release would inhibit exchange of drafts and views between staff and consultants, which would undermine the drafting process—s 7(2)(f)(i) applied—public interest met by the release of the final report and the peer reviews by relevant agencies

  • Local Authority’s dog ownership forms deficient and actions relating to processing forms were unreasonable

    Case notes
    Whether Local Authority had reasonable practices regarding dog ownership forms in situation where dog ownership disputed by parties—Chief Ombudsman concluded forms were deficient

  • Request for literature review on youth desistance

    Case notes
    Draft review provided to successful tenderer as starting point for an external research project— information not in the nature of free and frank opinions—disclosure would not undermine interest in s 9(2)(g)(i)—release accompanied by contextual statement

  • Request for minutes of Council workshops

    Case notes
    Request for minutes of Unitary Plan Political Working Party—minutes related to Council ‘workshops’—s 7(2)(f)(i) applied in part—minutes could be disclosed in part without inhibiting people from contributing to workshops in future

  • Request for information about employment investigation involving officer’s behaviour at a Police event

    Case notes
    Sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA applied to information about and supplied by witnesses—implied obligation of confidence—release would be likely to prejudice the future supply of information from witnesses to alleged staff misconduct—it is in the pu

  • Request for draft report on NZX compliance with general obligations

    Case notes
    Release would inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions by officials during the drafting process, and the exchange of opinions between the NZX and FMA—it is in the interests of the ‘effective conduct of public affairs’ for the review process to be robust and conducted in a manner that supported the FMA’s main objective of promoting and facilitating the development of fair, efficient and transparent markets—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied

  • Request for information about an employment investigation (demotion)

    Case notes
    Privacy and confidentiality grounds apply—need for accountability when things go wrong— nature and seriousness of the wrongdoing—seniority of the individual involved—release of summary information to satisfy public interest

  • Request for engineering reports regarding earthquake-prone buildings

    Case notes
    Section 7(2)(c)(i) applied—public interest in transparency for health and safety required the disclosure of four reports containing adverse findings

  • Request for handwritten notes of discussions between MFAT Chief Executive and Minister of Foreign Affairs

    Case notes
    Request for handwritten notes of Chief Executive’s discussions with Minister—confidentiality is necessary to protect the ongoing effectiveness and conduct of the relationship—public interest in disclosure not sufficient to outweigh s 9(2)(g)(i) interest

  • Request for interviews with potential child abuse victims

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA applied—high level of confidentiality attaches to interviews with potential child abuse victims—release would deter potential child abuse victims from participating in interviews—it is in the public interest for child protection

  • Request for staff named in emails about genetically modified corn

    Case notes
    Section 6(d) OIA did not apply—no real and objective risk of danger to safety—s 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA did not apply—many of the names were already publicly available in connection with this issue and no harm had ensued—section 9(2)(g)(i) OIA did not apply—inf

  • 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 public submissions on draft standard

    Case notes
    Members of the public with a vested interest in developing standards would not be deterred from expressing their opinions in future

  • Request for report on DHB governance issues

    Case notes
    Disclosure of report at time of request would have inhibited expression of free and frank opinions by officials—but passage of time and change in circumstances had diminished the likelihood of such prejudice—senior public servants would not be inhibited from expressing free and frank opinions in future

  • 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

  • Ombudsman not authorised to consider terms and conditions of service of armed forces

    Case notes
    Complaint about Government decisions regarding exposure of Viet Nam veterans to Agent Orange—Ombudsman declines to intervene—one reason being that s/he is not authorised to investigate any matter concerning the terms and conditions of service of a member of the defence forces

  • Department of Internal Affairs not unreasonable to cancel passport

    Case notes
    Department of Internal Affairs—decision to recall and cancel complainant’s NZ passport – position determined by terms of legislation

  • Request for details of risk management processes

    Case notes
    Request for details of risk management processes—relevant documents provided apart from the ‘risk register’—register consisted of free and frank expressions of opinion—release might undermine risk management strategy—public interest met by release of Risk Management Policy

  • Request for full internal report of health care

    Case notes
    Requests for full internal report by a Crown Health Enterprise following public tragedy—contents included personal health information conveyed in confidence, interviews with CHE staff and other individuals, peer review, conclusions and recommendations—confidentiality of personal health information—‘doctor/patient’ relationship—protection of free and frank opinions—some information released, some withheld—competing public interest considerations—accountability for public health care

  • Local Authority has no right to demand legal and court fees from non-paying customer

    Case notes
    Local Authority issued legal proceedings to recover unpaid mooring charges along with an account for ‘legal and court costs’—as the case had not been heard by a Court, the complainant claimed this was wrong—Ombudsman upheld the complaint, noting that a Local Authority cannot claim costs and legal fees (this being a matter for the Court to determine) and the Local Authority cannot list these on a person’s account as owing—the Local Authority changed its procedures regarding recovery of court costs

  • Local Authority not unreasonable to grant non-notified resource consent despite neighbour’s objections

    Case notes
    Local Authority granted non-notifiable resource consent for building extension where complainant claimed the structure would block his lake views. Council correctly applied s 94(2)(b) when it determined that no persons would be affected by the building because the adverse effect of the proposal on the environment was minor—allowing the proposal to proceed on a non-notified basis was not unreasonable

  • Local Authority remedies misunderstanding with elderly vendor in property re-purchase agreement

    Case notes
    Valuation of property for re-purchase—reliance by Council on valuer’s expertise—Council did not disclose information about recent comparable sales—perceived threat to withdraw unilaterally from transaction—Council’s intention to offer vendor opportunity to seek release from contract—apology and ex gratia payment offered for misunderstanding

  • Local Authority revises time limits for oral submissions on draft annual plan

    Case notes
    Annual Plan—special consultative process—amount of time to be allowed for oral submissions—s 716A of the Local Government Act 1974

  • Local Authority agreed its processes were inadequate when it removed vehicle from public street

    Case notes
    Vehicle removed by Local Authority in street—car had no registration sticker, was removed in accordance with ss 356(2) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1974 and stripped and crushed at a local tip—complainant claimed unfair process and investigation indicated a dispute of facts between the two parties about the time the car had been parked—Ombudsman found Authority’s records of actions inadequate—due process not followed—Authority accepted opinion—agreed to compensate for loss of the vehicle, apologise and to improve clarity of guidelines and procedures for record keeping

  • Local Authority determines adverse effect for non-notified resource consent

    Case notes
    Non-notified resource consent application for consent to erect second storey to property—neighbour denied objection and appeal rights—interpretation of s 94 of the Resource Management Act 1991

  • City Councillors can challenge Council’s decisions through Council’s Regulatory Committee, not Ombudsman

    Case notes
    Decision of Council not to notify application for resource consent—request by Councillor for review of decision—insufficient personal interest—Resource Management Act 1991, s 94—Ombudsmen Act 1975, s 17(1)(b)

  • Department of Conservation resolves impasse concerning ivory-key piano held by New Zealand Customs

    Case notes
    Refusal to release piano imported from United Kingdom—family heirloom from 1920s—need for approval of Department of Conservation under CITES because of ivory content—conflict between New Zealand legislation implementing CITES and European Community Regulations—impasse resolved by acceptance of statutory declaration by family—conflict to be raised with CITES Secretariat

  • District Council agrees to backdate effect of rate fee to when notice of ownership received

    Case notes
    Rating—uniform annual general charges levied on adjoining properties—local authority not notified that adjoining properties were occupied by same ratepayer—application for a refund on the basis that only a single uniform annual general charge was payable—Rating Powers Act 1988, ss 21(1) and 23.