Shadbolt v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeals were dismissed because the appellant instructed his solicitor to cease acting and explicitly directed that no further action be taken, and the case, having been directed to be dealt with on the papers, could not proceed without prosecution by the appellant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- Shadbolt v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Henry Shadbolt; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 August 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 (section 91) / Decision on the Papers Following Minute; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Attendant Care, Appeal, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Review of Review Officer Decision
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charles Henry Shadbolt
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 (section 91) / Decision on the Papers Following Minute; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should continue after the appellant withdrew instruction from his solicitor and instructed no further action
- 2 Whether a dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate where the appellant does not pursue the appeal and the matter was to be dealt with on the papers
Ratio Decidendi
The appeals were dismissed because the appellant instructed his solicitor to cease acting and explicitly directed that no further action be taken, and the case, having been directed to be dealt with on the papers, could not proceed without prosecution by the appellant.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 54/ 96 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 43 / 95/ 2074 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN CHARLES HENRY SHADBOLT of Ellerslie Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 113/95) (Appeal No. DCA 215/94) 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 The appellant, through his solicitors, appealed against the decisions of two review officers issued on 12 April 1995 and 25 August 1994 respectively in relation to attendant care. The appeals were set down for hearing at Auckland on 5 July 1995 and subsequently Judge Ongley issued a minute that the appeal was to be dealt with on the papers. He required both parties to provide submissions in terms of his minute. The respondent's submissions were submitted to the appellant's solicitor who has now notified the registrar that instructions have been received from the appellant that the solicitor's services are no longer required and that no further action is to be taken in relation to the appeals. N In these circumstances the appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this Sday of August 1996 A W Middleton District Court Judge dc24594.doc(rd)