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
Guides
Commonly used guides include:
- The OIA for Ministers and agencies
- The LGOIMA for local government agencies
- Making official information requests: a guide for requesters
Detailed guidance on the official information legislation and aspects of good administrative practice.
We also have guidance on disability rights and protected disclosures.
Case notes and opinions
Case notes are a short case summary, often demonstrating an aspect of a case.
An Ombudsman's Opinion is published where there is public interest in showing the full details of a case.
Reports
Reports include OPCAT, disability rights, official information practice and systemic investigation.
Outreach
Contains our media releases, newsletters, pamphlets, speeches and fact sheets. Fact sheets are published in multiple language and accessible formats.
Corporate documents
This includes our annual reports and strategic intentions.
Projects, reference and data
This includes our official information complaints data, updates on investigations and other projects, and submissions by the Ombudsman.
View all projects, reference and data
Template letters and work sheets
These template letters and work sheets can be used by agencies to help respond to official information requests.
26 Resources Show all
Request for record of ‘without prejudice’ meeting
Case notesSection 7(2)(g) LGOIMA did not apply—‘without prejudice’ privilege is not an aspect of legal professional privilege—s 7(2)(c)(ii) applied—obligation of confidence attaches to information subject to without prejudice privilege—release would make people rLegal professional privilege: A guide to section 9(2)(h) of the OIA and section 7(2)(g) of the LGOIMA
Official informationThis is a guide to the legal professional privilege withholding ground found in section 9(2)(h) of the OIA and section 7(2)(g) of the LGOIMA.Request for drafting instructions on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill
Case notesParliamentary Privilege Act 2014 did not provide a statutory bar on the Ombudsman’s investigation of a complaint under the OIA—section 9(2)(h) applied—withholding necessary to maintain legal professional privilege—no public interest overrideEarthquake Commission’s interpretation of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 regarding swimming pool building not unreasonable
Case notesWhether the Earthquake Commission was unreasonable to decline compensation for damage to the pool house enclosing a swimming pool at a Christchurch property—Ombudsman concluded EQC’s decision was not unreasonableEarthquake Commission should reimburse claimant’s travel costs when staff fail to attend meeting
Case notesEarthquake Commission asked to reimburse claimants who travelled to Christchurch from Auckland to attend a meeting with EQC officials who failed to arrive—Ombudsman concluded EQC failed to provide the level of service required in the circumstances—EQC asked to offer ex gratia payment to compensate losses incurred and to apologiseEarthquake Commission must follow legislation on claim lodgement time but Ombudsman considers law harsh
Case notesEarthquake Commission (EQC) not unreasonable to decline a claim lodged out of time because this is required under the legislation—Ombudsman considers the law unreasonably harsh and it should be changed—EQC advised it will look into amending the lawEarthquake Commission’s handling of a claim unreasonable in the circumstances
Case notesWhether the Earthquake Commission (EQC) had handled a claim for drapes and carpets in a reasonable manner—Chief Ombudsman found aspects of EQC’s handling of the matter to have been unsatisfactoryRequest for CAA investigation report on Minister’s airport security breach
Case notesSection 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 suEarthquake Commission’s assessment of emergency repairs on red zone property not unreasonable
Case notesWhether Earthquake Commission (EQC) reasonably addressed concerns about emergency repair work on property affected by earthquake damage—Chief Ombudsman concluded EQC’s handling of this claim had not been unreasonableInformation fault lines: accessing EQC information in Canterbury
Systemic investigationsA joint report of the Chief Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner into the Earthquake Commission's handling of information requests in Canterbury.Earthquake Commission not unreasonable to decline payment for engineering reports commissioned by property owner
Case notesWhether it was reasonable for EQC to decline payment for two engineering reports—Ombudsman considered that EQC had not acted unreasonably in this respectEarthquake Commission unreasonable not to settle claim in the particular circumstances
Case notesEarthquake Commission (EQC) refused to proceed with contents claim without explaining to claimant, even though the claim had been assessed and approved—Ombudsman finds EQC’s actions unreasonable—complaint settled when EQC agreed to rectify its omissionRequest for legal opinions concerning Russian adoptions
Case notesRequest for legal opinions concerning Russian adoptions—withheld to maintain legal professional privilege—s 9(2)(h)—public disclosures of first opinion meant waiver had occurred—s 9 ‘necessity’ test not met—while section 9(2)(h) applies to second opinion need to withhold outweighed by a strong public interest in release of the information (with the exception of three paragraphs)Request for ACC notice board bulletin
Case notesRequester sought a copy of ACC notice board bulletin - bulletin contains commentary and advice on various court decisions - prepared by practising solicitor in his professional capacity - purpose is to give general legal advice to case managers who routinely request and rely upon it - refused under s 9(2)(h) - legal professional privilege applies - no waiver even though it was distributed widely amongst ACC staff - marked confidential and subject to privilege - no public interest in release that outweighed strong public interest in ensuring privilege is maintained.Request for Crown Law opinion
Case notesRequest for Crown Law opinion that Creative NZ referred to in correspondence—withheld under s 9(2)(h)—legal professional privilege attached to information—whether partial disclosure of contents of opinion sufficient to constitute waiver—s 9(2)(h) appliedRequest for advice relating to an independent review, including legal advice transferred between agencies
Case notesRequest for information relating to independent review of PHARMAC’S Operating Policies and Procedures—some information withheld as it was considered legally privileged—legal advice transferred between agencies did not constitute a waiver of the privilege—common interest privilege appliedRequest for policy on settling disputes
Case notesRequest for policy on settling disputes—information withheld on basis of legal professional privilege—consideration of s 22 and relationship with s 9(2)(h)Request for advice given by Queen’s Counsel
Case notesRequest for advice given by Queen’s Counsel—whether information subject to legal professional privilege—purpose for which information was brought into existence—whether other considerations warranting disclosure in the public interestRequest for advice to Solicitor-General by crown lawyer
Case notesRequest for advice to Solicitor-General by in-house Counsel of Crown Law Office—reasons for refusal of consent to prosecution—information covered by legal professional privilege—weight of public interest in Solicitor General’s reasons—distinction between factors taken into account and legal advice—protection of legal professional privilege not outweighedRequest for legal advice
Case notesRequest for legal advice—information covered by legal professional privilege—public interest in Member of Parliament having information to discharge responsibilities to electors—balance between availability and protection of official information—protection of legal professional privilege not outweighedEarthquake Commission can impose excess levy under the regulations
Case notesTwo adjoining properties affected by a landslide – EQC levied an excess on both properties in accordance with the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 (Regulations 1993, reg 4(1)(b)—the Ombudsman concluded EQC was entitled to impose the excessRequest for legal opinion used in making submissions on proposed regulatory changes
Case notesRequest for legal opinion—request refused under s 9(2)(h)—opinion used extensively in submissions—view formed that privilege waived—any need to withhold outweighed under s 9(1) by strong public interest considerationEarthquake Commission not required to cover buildings under construction in the event of a landslide
Case notesEarthquake Commission and Insurer both decline cover for half-built structure on private property, damaged following a landslide—still being under construction meant the building was not being used for its intended purpose and EQC’s decision in this respect was correct—Ombudsman advised that the complainant could refer the matter back to the insurer for a reconsideration and the Insurer in this case took a liberal view of what had been an unusual event and settled the claim—case indicates the need to obtain cover for landslip while a building is under constructionRequest for faxes annotated with advice from General Counsel
Case notesRequest for copies of faxes sent to New Zealand Dairy Board by the requester and any information generated by them—faxes annotated with advice from General Counsel—request declined under s 9(2)(h)—Board agrees to waive privilege and information releasedRequest for legal opinion regarding first application to be granted by Minister under section 188 of the Resource Management Act
Case notesRequest for legal opinion regarding first application under s 188 of Resource Management Act to be granted by Minister—information withheld under s 9(2)(h)—no waiver—no countervailing public interest considerations warranting disclosureRequest for legal advice used in formulation of mining policy
Case notesRequest for legal advice—refused under s 9(2)(h)—necessary to maintain legal professional privilege—not outweighed by public interest favouring disclosure