Alkazaz v Enterprise It Limited

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA652/2020
[2021] NZCA 132

BETWEEN	AHMED ALKAZAZ Applicant
AND	ENTERPRISE IT LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Miller and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person R J Bryant for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	23 April 2021 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applications are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Mr Alkazaz has applied for recall of our judgment of 15 February 2021, a stay of execution of the order that he pay costs, and a declaration that the respondent’s representation was “invalid” because its corporate name has changed and it is being liquidated, and its counsel produced no documentary evidence that he had authority to act on its behalf.
We decline to do any of these things. None of the applications has any merit and the recall application is an impermissible attempt to relitigate our decision on collateral grounds. This Court need not and will not go behind Mr Bryant’s advice that he represents the respondent.
The applications are dismissed. We direct that the Registrar is to receive no further papers from Mr Alkazaz in connection with this proposed appeal.

Solicitors:
Aspiring Law Ltd, Wanaka for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicant Ahmed Alkazaz sought recall of the Court's earlier judgment, a stay of execution of an order that he pay costs, and a declaration that the respondent's representation was invalid due to a change in its corporate name and ongoing liquidation proceedings. The respondent, Enterprise IT Limited, was represented by counsel. The Court declined to entertain any of the applications, asserting that they lacked merit and that the recall application constituted an impermissible attempt to relitigate the Court's decision on grounds outside the original scope of the case. The Court emphasised that it would not delve into the validity of counsel's representation beyond accepting that he was authorised to act on behalf of the respondent.

The legal issues before the Court revolved around the validity of the respondent's representation, the authority of its counsel, and the procedural correctness of the earlier judgment and associated costs order. The applicant argued that the respondent's representation was invalid due to a change in its corporate name and ongoing liquidation, and that its counsel lacked documentary evidence of authority. The Court, however, found no basis to question the representation's validity or the authority of the counsel, affirming that it would not revisit the decision made on the merits of the case.

In its reasoning, the Court held that the recall application was impermissible as it sought to relitigate the case on grounds not considered in the original judgment. The Court held firm in its earlier decision, dismissing the application for recall and affirming the costs order. The Court emphasised that it would rely on counsel's assurance of representation without delving into the specifics of the respondent's internal matters. The Court further directed that no further papers from the applicant would be accepted in connection with the proposed appeal.

The final orders of the Court were clear: the recall application, the stay of execution request, and the declaration application were all dismissed. The Court reinforced its stance by directing that the Registrar was to receive no further papers from the applicant regarding the proposed appeal. This decision underscored the Court's adherence to procedural correctness and its reluctance to entertain repetitive or meritless applications.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established