Fowler v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed over a prolonged period to prosecute the appeal or maintain contact, registry service attempts failed (letters returned "not known" and searches unsuccessful), and counsel had sought to withdraw, justifying striking the appeal for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] NZACC 271
- Parties
- Appellant: David A Fowler of Paeroa (Ref: AI 446/00); Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 3 November 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Insurance Act 1998 S148 / Decision on the Papers; Appeal Struck Out for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal struck out for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Non Compliance With Rehabilitation Plan, Withdrawal of Counsel, Service and Notice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David A Fowler of Paeroa (Ref: AI 446/00)
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Insurance Act 1998 S148 / 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 lack of contact and unsuccessful service justify striking out
- 3 Effect of counsel's withdrawal on prosecution
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed over a prolonged period to prosecute the appeal or maintain contact, registry service attempts failed (letters returned "not known" and searches unsuccessful), and counsel had sought to withdraw, justifying striking the appeal for want of prosecution.
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 HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 271/2003 UNDER The Accident Insurance Act 1998 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 148 of the Act BETWEEN David A FOWLER of Paeroa (Ref: AI 446/00) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent DECISION ON THE PAPERS 1. The appellant’s counsel, Andrew Cadenhead, filed a notice of appeal on 11th September 2000 against a decision of a Review officer, which had upheld the Corporation’s decision ceasing entitlements to payments for non-compliance with a rehabilitation plan. 2. On 28th September 2003 the appellant’s counsel requested leave to withdraw. 2 3. I note that the Registry wrote to the appellant at his last known address on 15th October 2003 requesting him to file submissions. However, after attempting delivery at 3 different addresses the NZ Post returned the Registry’s letter marked “not known”. 4. The file also records the Registry’s efforts to search the Internet white pages telephone lists for an address for the appellant but this proved fruitless. 5. In conclusion I note that the Registry has had no direct contact from the appellant since the appeal was lodged 3 years ago. It also appears from his counsel’s comments, when withdrawing from the matter, that it was a considerable time since the appellant last contacted his counsel. 6. I therefore STRIKE OUT this Appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this 3rd day of November 2003 _____________________________ District Court Judge (P F Barber)