Autridge v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's solicitor withdrew for want of instructions and the appellant failed to respond to the Registrar's notices and did not take steps to prosecute the appeal, justifying striking out for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 152
- Parties
- Appellant: Brett Autridge; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Decision on the Papers; Appeal Struck Out for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Want of Prosecution, Strike Out, Procedure for Prosecuting Appeals
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brett Autridge
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Decision on the Papers; Appeal Struck Out for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether failure of appellant and counsel to respond to Registrar's notices justifies dismissal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's solicitor withdrew for want of instructions and the appellant failed to respond to the Registrar's notices and did not take steps to prosecute the appeal, justifying striking out for want of prosecution.
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. 152 /99 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN BRETT AUTRIDGE of Christchurch Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 291/98) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A W MIDDLETON ON THE PAPERS On 23 July 1998 Matthew Shepherd, Solicitor for the appellant, gave notice of his intention to lodge an appeal against the decision of the Review Officer issued on 15 June 1998. On 8 March 1999 Mr Shepherd wrote to the Court advising that he could not obtain instructions from his client and therefore withdrew as his counsel. Two letters were then sent to the appellant, on 12 March, 31 March 1999 asking the appellant to advise the Court if the appeal was to proceed. On 17 May 1999 the Registrar informed the appellant that if no response was received within 21 days the appeal would be placed before the Court with a recommendation that it be struck out for want of prosecution. 2 As the appellant has failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence or made any attempts to prosecute the appeal, I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this | 6 Ph day of June 1999 A W Middleton District Court Judge dca291-98.doc (nr)