Alkazaz v Deloitte Limited - [2024] NZCA 194

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA411/2023
[2024] NZCA 194

BETWEEN	AHMED ALKAZAZ Appellant
AND	DELOITTE LIMITED First Respondent
AND	CAREY WONG Second Respondent
AND	MICHAEL ENDERBY Third Respondent

Hearing:	5 March 2024
Court:	Courtney, Dunningham and Moore JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person S A Armstrong for Respondents
Judgment:	30 May 2024 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed.

BThe appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dunningham J)

Introduction

This is an appeal from a decision striking out the defamation proceeding brought by the appellant, Mr AlKazaz, against Deloitte Ltd (Deloitte) and two former Deloitte employees, Mr Wong and Dr Enderby.[1]
[1]AlKazaz v Deloite Ltd & Ors [2023] NZHC 1592 [High Court judgment].
The proceeding was struck out because the claim was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period provided for in s 15 of the Limitation Act 2010.
Mr AlKazaz raises three grounds of appeal. First, he argues the filing of his statement of problem in the Employment Relations Authority on 31 July 2018, and/or his challenge to the Employment Relations Authority’s determination in the Employment Court in May 2019, was sufficient to constitute the commencement of the defamation claim against the respondents for the purpose of the Limitation Act.
Second, he says the High Court erred by allowing the exchange of further affidavit evidence and, in particular, a supplementary affidavit dated 28 April 2023, after the respondents had filed their affidavit in reply dated 16 February 2023.
Finally, Mr AlKazaz claims that his self‑representation and limited English proficiency, coupled with the alleged procedural irregularity referred to above, served to disadvantage him within the legal process and also warrant allowing the appeal.

Background

Mr AlKazaz was employed by a Deloitte subsidiary, DeloitteAsparona Ltd from September 2013. After his employment was affected by a restructuring process, he and DeloitteAsparona Ltd entered into a record of settlement on 7 July 2016. The employment relationship came to an end on 29 August 2016. During that process Mr AlKazaz was legally represented and the agreement was signed off by a mediator in accordance with the Employment Relations Act 2000.
On 20 April 2018, a recruitment agency retained by Mr AlKazaz, Halcyon Knights, forwarded his CV to Deloitte for consideration for another position. Halcyon Knights sent an email to Mr Carey Wong, senior recruitment adviser at Deloitte, saying:
Please find Ahmed’s Cv attached for the Technical Consultant role in Auckland. Ahmed comes well recommended from our network and has indicated an interest in Deloitte & requested for his details to be presented to you.
…
Would you be keen to see him?
Mr Wong then conferred with Dr Michael Enderby, a senior specialist employed in Deloitte’s Oracle practice. Dr Enderby indicated that Mr AlKazaz’s CV did not accurately reflect the work Mr AlKazaz performed during the time they worked together at DeloitteAsparona.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alkazaz v Deloitte Limited

Details

AGLC: Alkazaz v Deloitte Limited [2024] NZCA 194
Case: [2024] NZCA 194
Decision Date: 30 May 2024 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alkazaz v Deloitte Limited concerns an appeal brought by Mr Alkazaz against a decision of the High Court which struck out his defamation claim against Deloitte Ltd and two former Deloitte employees. The High Court had ruled that Mr Alkazaz's defamation claim was statute-barred as it was filed outside the two-year limitation period provided for in the Limitation Act 2010. Mr Alkazaz raised three grounds of appeal, arguing that his claim was commenced within the limitation period, that the High Court erred by allowing further evidence to be filed, and that his disadvantages in self-representation and limited English proficiency warranted allowing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the filing of proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court did not constitute the commencement of a defamation claim for the purposes of the Limitation Act. The Court also found that the High Court did not err in allowing the filing of supplementary evidence as it served the interests of justice by ensuring all relevant evidence was before the Court. The Court further held that Mr Alkazaz's disadvantages in self-representation and limited English proficiency did not justify allowing the appeal as there was clear evidence that he knew the material facts to advance his defamation claim prior to the limitation period expiring.

The appeal was therefore dismissed, with Mr Alkazaz ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision that Mr Alkazaz's defamation claim was statute-barred and an abuse of process. The Court found that the High Court properly applied the Limitation Act and that Mr Alkazaz's disadvantages did not warrant allowing the appeal.

Orders