Sexton v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant made no effort to prosecute the appeal, failed to file required interim submissions and did not appear at the directions hearing, justifying dismissal under Section 161(3)(b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] NZACC 259
- Parties
- Appellant: Barry Deane Sexton; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 17 October 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / Directions Hearing; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Non Compliance With Practice Note, Application of Section 161(3)(b)
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barry Deane Sexton
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / Directions Hearing; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether the appellant complied with procedural requirements including filing interim submissions as required by the Practice Note
- 3 Whether Section 161(3)(b) permits dismissal given the appellant's inaction
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant made no effort to prosecute the appeal, failed to file required interim submissions and did not appear at the directions hearing, justifying dismissal under Section 161(3)(b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT AUCKLAND Decision No. 259 /2008 IN THE MATTER of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act BETWEEN BARRY DEANE SEXTON (Al 95/08) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent HEARD at AUCKLAND on 7 October 2008 APPEARANCES No appearance of appellant Mr D Tui, Counsel for Respondent, DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] The appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal with the Registry on 25 March 2008 from a Review Decision dated 18 February 2008. [2] Despite written requests from the Registry the appellant has taken no step in the prosecution of his appeal, and in particular has not filed interim submissions as required by the Practice Note. [3] By letter dated 1 October 2008 the appellant was advised that this appeal would be called before a Judge on 7 October at 10.00 a.m., for the Court to be informed of progress of this appeal. 2 [4] There was no appearance by the appellant at the Directions Hearing and no advice had been received from the appellant either to the Registry or to the Court in relation to the appellant's intentions in this appeal. [5] Mr Tui, representing the respondent, made application that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. I am satisfied that the appellant has displayed no effort whatsoever in the prosecution of this appeal, and accordingly this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Act. DATED this (7th day of October 2008 M J Beattie District Court Judge