Booth v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to prosecute it: after filing the notice of appeal the appellant gave no further instructions, counsel sought leave to withdraw, and repeated registry attempts to contact the appellant were unsuccessful, rendering the matter not ready for hearing.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] NZACC 202
- Parties
- Appellant: C Booth of Christchurch; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 25 August 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 149 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (and Accident Insurance Act 1998) / Decision on the Papers – Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal struck out for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Independence Allowance Entitlement, Appeal Procedure, Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
C Booth of Christchurch
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 149 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (and Accident Insurance Act 1998) / Decision on the Papers – Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellant was entitled to an independence allowance
- 2 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to prosecute it: after filing the notice of appeal the appellant gave no further instructions, counsel sought leave to withdraw, and repeated registry attempts to contact the appellant were unsuccessful, rendering the matter not ready for hearing.
Court Disposition
Appeal struck out for want of prosecution.
Orders
- Appeal struck out for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 202/2003 UNDER The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 and The Accident Insurance Act 1998 AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal pursuant to section 149 of the Act BETWEEN C BOOTH of Christchurch (Ref: AI 591/01) Appellant AND - ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION ON THE PAPERS [1] The appellant’s solicitor, Andrew Cadenhead, filed a notice of appeal on 21 December 2001 against a decision by a Review Officer as to whether the Corporation had correctly determined that there was no entitlement to an independence allowance. [2] The Registry acknowledged the notice of appeal on 21 December 2001, and wrote seeking submissions on 15 January 2002. Counsel requested an extension of time on 18 January 2002, which was granted. [3] On 19 February 2003 the Registry wrote seeking information about the status of the appeal and was advised by counsel on 3 March 2003 that the matter was not ready for hearing. On 23 July 2003 counsel wrote to seek leave to withdraw, as the appellant had given no further instruction. [4] The Registry wrote directly to the appellant on 28 July 2003 to ascertain the status of the appeal but efforts to make contact have proved unsuccessful. [5] I therefore STRIKE OUT this Appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this 25th day of August 2003 Judge P F Barber District Court Judge Wellington AI591-01-Booth.doc(nl) 2