Media release – Menzies matter (Part 1 of 2)
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
On paper, it’s a fail. But it would have been a sin not to have tried.
In 2022, two security guards fell out. One had worked for the other’s company for about six months. At the time, the company was technically insolvent and entered liquidation a few months after a personal grievance claim was raised. Right or wrong, the grievance did not die with the company and the former employee continued to incur legal costs.
The Authority held an investigation meeting about the grievance in December 2022. The director did not have standing to defend the in-liquidation company. He was not required as a witness. And he wasn’t even notified that there would be an investigation meeting in the first place.
The Employment Relations Authority made an award against the in-liquidation company. For whatever reason, the debt was not registered with the liquidator.
Director joined to proceeding, liquidator struck off on the same day
26 July 2024 was a rough day for two people.
One was Levi Menzies, who had been joined to the proceeding, and became the first director in the history of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to have been argued out of his limited liability protection in relation to a personal grievance against his in-liquidation company, as per [2024] NZERA 448. Menzies challenged the Authority’s determination to the Employment Court. A 22 July 2026 judgment of Judge Holden explains why it has taken almost two years to get to this point.
The other was Kelera Nayacakalou, who was one of two liquidators involved in the liquidation of Prime Focus Security. After four unrelated complaints, she was stripped of her licence by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants and ordered to pay around $40,000 in costs. An interim non-publication order lapsed on 1 October 2024 (so Court documents were filed without knowledge of this development). A few months later, the High Court reduced Nayacakalou’s fees in a further liquidation by a whopping 90% and ordered her to pay $22,679 costs to the Applicant, Brent Gillovic.
The Disciplinary Tribunal’s determination does not have a direct link, so the best way to find it is to click on Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand | CA ANZ and type “Nayacakalou” in the search bar and download the pdf. For the time-poor, the law firm Russell McVeigh has a brief, but excellent article on its website: Restructuring & Insolvency round up - Russell McVeagh
What the article (and the Tribunal’s determination) doesn’t mention is that the convicted fraudster applied for a non-publication order in relation to Ms Nayacakalou’s disciplinary matter, ostensibly on mental health grounds. It was granted. Lawrence Anderson, Menzies’ advocate at the time, had never heard of him and therefore could not research his role in the liquidation and collect evidence that might have assisted Menzies in his appeal. I had also never heard of him until a 6 May 2025 tipoff, a few weeks after the (first) appeal had tanked. 15 days later I filed Menzies’ application for judicial review, which was put on hold in February 2026.
Media engaged for over a decade
BusinessDesk reporter Gregor Thompson and I made separate applications to the Disciplinary Tribunal in June 2025 to lift the non-publication order, but this was declined. Thompson’s paywalled article referred to the business arrangement as “sock puppetry” but realising that term wouldn’t fly in the Court I instead referred to a “shadow liquidator” and “licensed proxy” in submissions.
The influence the now former liquidators had on the employment proceeding over nearly four years was profound. But, as the Court has found, applying for a challenge 9-10 months out of time is not going to fly either.
The judgment contains two lessons
You can’t get blood out of a stone, no matter how well connected you are.
If a party discontinues an appeal/challenge and valuable evidence is found later, there’s no going back.
The link to the judgment is here: [2026] NZEmpC 151 Menzies v Corrigan and Prime Focus Security Ltd (in liq)
This is a public interest case that may be of interest to media.
In the second part of this media release, our accounts-savvy readers will get a chance to compare the financial reports of a reputable Chartered Accountant with those of our Teflon-coated shadow liquidator!
Tristam Price
Editor and occasional employment advocate
Comments