Previously let go by Deloitte as part of restructuring in 2013, Ahmed AlKazaz sued for defamation a decade later alleging he had been defamed by Deloitte when turned down for further employment in 2018. His claim was outside the two year time limit for defamation claims and did not specify how he had been defamed, the High Court ruled.
Mr AlKazaz previously worked for Deloitte subsidiary DeloitteAsparona Ltd in what was described as a training role. Five years after departure, a recruitment agency sent his CV to Deloitte in response to an advertised vacancy for a technical consultant role. When Deloitte responded that it ‘declined to proceed,’ the recruitment agency sought feedback. Deloitte responded with a comment that information on Mr AlKazaz’s CV was inaccurate and added a link to a media article in which Mr AlKazaz had sued another employer for unjustified dismissal.
The High Court was told that Mr AlKazaz’s application for work as a technical consultant had been viewed with amusement by Deloitte staff who had worked with him previously, taking the view he did not have the skills claimed.
The Defamation Act generally requires claims to be filed within two years. Those claiming to be defamed are expected to take steps promptly to protect their reputation. Mr AlKazaz’s claim was filed too late, Associate judge Gardiner ruled. The fact Mr AlKazaz has English as a second language, was doing his own legal work and was unaware until recently that New Zealand law allowed actions for defamation were not an excuse, she ruled.
Mr AlKazaz’s claim also failed because he did not specify what comments were defamatory and how they were considered defamatory.
In earlier separate legal proceedings, Mr AlKazaz sued in the Employment Court claiming Deloitte breached terms agreed on his 2013 departure. The Employment Court acknowledged that disparaging and derogatory comments were made about Mr AlKazaz when he subsequently applied for a new job. These comments did breach the 2013 agreement. No remedy was available because the comments were not made by staff of the DeloitteAsparona subsidiary, his former employer.
AlKazaz v. Deloitte Ltd – High Court (26.06.23)
23.099