Sutherland v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Dismissal was justified because the appellant and her representative repeatedly failed to respond to the Registrar's requests and did not take steps to prosecute the appeal despite clear notice that the matter would be recommended for striking out.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] NZACC 81
- Parties
- Appellant: ANNE LOUISE SUTHERLAND; Respondent: ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 April 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / On the Papers; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution (post Lodgement, Pre Hearing)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Want of Prosecution, Failure to Prosecute, Case Management, Strike Out
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ANNE LOUISE SUTHERLAND
Appellant
ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / On the Papers; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution (post Lodgement, Pre Hearing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to provide submissions or respond to Registrar's directions
- 2 Whether adequate notice was given and opportunity to prosecute were afforded
Ratio Decidendi
Dismissal was justified because the appellant and her representative repeatedly failed to respond to the Registrar's requests and did not take steps to prosecute the appeal despite clear notice that the matter would be recommended for striking out.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 81/ 97 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN ANNE LOUISE SUTHERLAND of Christchurch Appellant (Ref: DCA 157/96) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE A W MIDDLETON ON THE PAPERS On 23 May 1996, Mr J Fairclough, solicitor for the appellant gave notice of his intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on 22 April 1996. Three letters were sent to Mr Fairclough, requesting his submissions, dated 27 September 1996, 29 October 1996 and 11 December 1996. A further letter dated 28 January 1997 was sent requesting submissions and informing Mr Fairclough if no response was received the appeal would be placed before the Court with the recommendation that it be struck out for want of prosecution. Mr Fairclough wrote to the Court on 21 February stating he was attempting to contact Mrs Sutherland and he would inform the Court within two weeks whether the appeal would be abandoned or submissions filed. 2 On 20 March 1997 the Registrar asked Mr Fairclough to inform the Court within 28 days of Mrs Sutherland's instructions and if no response was received within 28 days, the appeal would be placed before the Court for consideration. As Mrs Sutherland or her representative have failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence or made any attempt to prosecute the appeal, I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this 30th day of April 1997 A W Middleton District Court Judge dca15796.doc(sh)