The Arts Council, which governs Creative NZ, did follow the process as it was required, the judge said. Not all steps taken by staff in the process needed to be explicitly laid out. It also made no error. Creative NZ fulfilled its responsibilities in relation to responding to the complaint of denied funding, the judge decided. It investigated appropriately, and met the requirements of the complaints process. DANZ was “expressly advised” that it may not be successful in obtaining funding, despite the long-term nature of its funding relationship with Creative NZ. There was no basis for any legitimate expectation it would be consulted or notified other than what actually occurred.
Justice Christine Grice has been hearing the proceedings in Wellington. (File photo) Chan was claimed to have told DANZ that it played a “unique, umbrella role” for the sector. However, that was before the funding criteria had been set, Watt said. Chan could not predict what DANZ would put in its funding proposal, nor could Chan make a promise about any decision the Arts Council, which governs Creative NZ and signs off on all funding, had to lawfully make. A later meeting between DANZ and Creative NZ senior manager Cath Cardiff, in March 2019, also could not be seen as giving rise to any legitimate expectation the company would be successful in receiving funding, Watt said.