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

37 Resources Show all

  • Request for tender submissions to replace jetty at Philomel Landing

    Case notes
    Release of tenderers’ pricing strategy would give an unfair advantage to their competitors and unreasonably prejudice their commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA applies—release would make tenderers reluctant to provide as much detail about their design specifications in future— s 9(2)(ba)(i) applies—it was in the public interest for NZDF to receive full and detailed submissions as this would otherwise undermine its ability to make an informed decision on the best tenderer to award a contract

  • Request for Customs’ staff engagement survey

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA applied—express obligation of confidence—release of personalised comment that could be attributed to particular individuals would be likely to prejudice the future supply of similar information—it is in the public interest for ag

  • Request for CAA investigation report on Minister’s airport security breach

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA applied to information that would identify Minister’s staff—s 9(2)(a) did not apply to non-sensitive information about actions that occurred in a public place, or to the name of the Investigator—s 6(c) did not apply to information su

  • Request for draft terms of reference for an inquiry

    Case notes
    Draft terms of reference largely the same as publicly available final ones—release would not inhibit the future free and frank expression of opinion or provision of advice to the Prime Minister—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply

  • Local Authority provided unreasonable advice regarding its investigation process

    Case notes
    Whether the Local Authority (District Council) reasonably provided advice to complainant regarding an investigation it was undertaking into a Code of Conduct complaint—Ombudsman of the view that the Council erred in this respect

  • Request for names of frontline forestry officers in information about the felling and milling of kauri

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—MPI provided evidence of past instances of harassment and comments from the staff concerned—reasonable expectation that release would lead to improper pressure or harassment which would be detrimental to MPI’s administrat

  • Request for evaluation and audit reports regarding extended supervision orders

    Case notes
    Evaluation report comprised largely academic material and statistical analysis—9(2)(g)(i) did not apply—audit report had been submitted to senior management but marked as draft—disclosure of majority not likely to prejudice future exchange of free and frank opinions—significant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure—audit report released with deletion of names and detailed findings relating to individual service providers

  • Request for briefing notes relating to state visits

    Case notes
    Inspection on conditions in order to identify the documents required provided means of resolving s 18(f) refusal

  • Request for DHB Commissioner’s draft work plan

    Case notes
    Release of draft work plan would likely result in reluctance by staff to draft and consult on document—components of plan, once confirmed, were to be included in the 2016/17 annual plan—s 9(2)(g)(i) provided good reason to withhold

  • Request for draft financial performance analysis

    Case notes
    Draft financial performance analysis prepared by Alma Consulting—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply— strong public interest in release

  • Local Authority not unreasonable to enforce pool fence requirements despite previous decisions

    Case notes
    Local Authority previously allowed existing fence of swimming pool—new inspection revealed old decisions wrong—complainant considered change unfair—Ombudsman concluded Council entitled to insist on regulations

  • 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

  • Names of senior and principal historian involved in writing treaty settlement memo

    Case notes
    Sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA did not apply—information publicly available—seniority—degree of responsibility—no material supporting likelihood of pressure or harassment

  • 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 name of Auckland Transport employee who requested trade plate cancellation

    Case notes
    Section 7(2)(f)(ii) LGOIMA applied—Auckland Transport provided examples of situations where its employees had been personally targeted and subjected to behaviour that was perceived to be threatening and intimidating by requester—reasonable likelihood th

  • 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)