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

21 Resources Show all

  • The LGOIMA for local government agencies: A guide to processing requests and conducting meetings

    Official information
    The purpose of this guide is to assist local government agencies in recognising and responding to requests for official information under the LGOIMA.

  • Template letter 16: Refusal letter under section 18(h) OIA / section 17(h) LGOIMA

    Template letters and worksheets, Template letters
    Use this letter if you need to refuse a request under section 18(h) OIA / section 17(h) LGOIMA—Frivolous or vexatious request. 

  • Frivolous, vexatious and trivial: A guide to section 18(h) of the OIA and section 17(h) of the LGOIMA

    Official information
    Under section 18(h) of the OIA (17(h) of the LGOIMA) a request can be refused if it is frivolous or vexatious, or the information is trivial.

  • Request for internal and external correspondence relating to OIA requests

    Case notes
    Request not frivolous or vexatious—information not trivial—agency should have met or at least talked with the requester before changing its practice of providing this type of information

  • Request for information about mental health

    Case notes
    Refusal justified but not because request was vexatious—some information not held but would need to be created—some information could not be provided without substantial collation or research

  • Request for ‘movement log’ and police file

    Case notes
    Requester not deprived of right to access official information because he had already received all relevant information—requester not deprived of access to justice because his underlying concerns had been conclusively resolved in a range of forums¬—vexatious complaint, Ombudsman refuses to investigate

  • Request for information relating to proposed parking changes in a street

    Case notes
    Volume of correspondence and requests created challenges but requester had a legitimate interest in obtaining information to help them understand the intended changes and make submissions—no evidence the request was made for irrational, mischievous or malicious reasons—no evidence that the agency had helped the requester to refine the request, reduce the scope, or clarify the specific information sought—request not frivolous or vexatious

  • Request for copy of LGOIMA request

    Case notes
    Earlier decision to supply the (wrong) information undermined later decision to declare the request vexatious—request arose out of genuine interest in the subject—while the requester had been critical of Council that did not mean the purpose of his request was to harass or annoy—s 18(h) does not apply—information should be released

  • Request for correspondence regarding dog control officer’s actions

    Case notes
    Request related to dispute some 16 years prior that had already been the subject of court proceedings and inquiries by this Office—request was an attempt to re-litigate already long concluded matters and an abuse of the right to access official information—vexatious complaint—Ombudsman refuses to investigate

  • Request for evidentiary conclusions in respect of 15 issues or assertions and information about religious affiliation or association of staff

    Case notes
    Information not held—evidentiary conclusions would need to be created—to the extent that if information about religious affiliation or association of staff was held in mind of Commissioner, it would be held in a personal capacity

  • Request for information about tangata whenua rights

    Case notes
    Requester seeking official statement from Minister—information not held—explanation would need to be created

  • Request for breakdown of invoice

    Case notes
    Council concerned that request was part of a strategy to delay or avoid payment—no basis to believe request was made in bad faith—request not frivolous or vexatious—information should be released

  • Request for audit report of approved organisation under Animal Welfare Act

    Case notes
    Acrimonious history and prolonged legal dispute were relevant to decision whether or not request was vexatious—while future similar requests might be vexatious this one was not—the requester’s legitimate concern about effectiveness of Ministry’s oversight of approved organisations was the catalyst for the audit report, and she was initially promised a copy of it—requester was genuinely interested in and entitled to know the findings—request not frivolous or vexatious—Trust does not have a commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not apply

  • Requests by lawyer for information about client

    Case notes
    A proportion of the large volume of information at issue could fairly be characterised as ‘trivial’, bearing in mind the purpose of the request—this included auto replies, read receipts, undeliverable messages, emails arranging meetings and information generated to facilitate the proper processing of the requester’s OIA and Privacy Act requests

  • Complaint that notice of meeting did not comply with LGOIMA provisions and meeting minutes were not a true and correct record

    Case notes
    Member of public concerned that notice of meeting did not comply with relevant LGOIMA provisions and minutes of meeting were not a true and correct record—Ombudsman satisfied that meeting notified correctly—Ombudsman formed view that allowing one member of public to address subcommittee did not amount to a public forum and printing resolution on agenda was not sufficient to meet requirements of s 48(4)(a)—Council agreed to amend minutes and take steps to ensure staff aware of legal requirements

  • Request for tape recording of Council Committee deliberations

    Case notes
    Property owner sought tape recording of Council Committee deliberations (public excluded) on his application for a resource consent—withheld under s 7(2)(f)(i)—basis for public exclusion invalid but withholding grounds still available to Council—information on tape recording consisted of free and frank expression of opinions which, if released, would harm ‘the effective conduct of public affairs’ by hampering, delaying or preventing future resource consent processes—no countervailing public interest considerations favouring release that would outweigh the need to protect information

  • Decision of University Council Committee to impose conditions on use of information

    Case notes
    Decision of University Council Committee to place an ‘embargo’ on the release of information considered by the Committee—embargo prevented any independent report on the information considered by the Committee until the next meeting of the Council of the University—meeting open to public—requester entitled to a copy of the agenda, subject only to the payment of the prescribed amount

  • Request for information refused due to offensive and repetitive nature

    Case notes
    Number of requests made to Police over several years—recent request considered frivolous and vexatious—refused under s 18(h) in light of tone of correspondence and previous similar requests—requester had genuine interest in obtaining the requested information—requester agreed to withdraw the abusive remarks and redraft his requests purged of derogatory and intemperate comment

  • Requests for information about decision making declined for being vexatious

    Case notes
    Requests for further information declined under s 18(h)—requests not frivolous or vexatious—the information had not previously been made available Request to Apple and Pear Marketing Board involved substantial collation or research and the creation of explanations— ss 18(f) and 18(g) apply

  • Inappropriate public exclusion by local authority

    Case notes
    Decision of local authority’s Environmental and Planning Committee to exclude the public from part of a meeting at which a draft regional policy statement was considered—inappropriate use of s 48(1)(d)

  • Request for polytechnic financial report

    Case notes
    Financial report not free and frank expression of opinion—linkage between information and expression of opinion—what constitutes improper pressure or harassment—section 9(2)(g)(i) not a ground for exclusion of public from meeting