Hamilton v Accident Compensation Corporation
The court struck out the appeal for want of prosecution because counsel could not contact the appellant and the respondent applied for strike out.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] NZACC 228
- Parties
- Appellant: David Edward Hamilton; Respondent: QBE a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 28 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (section 149) / Decision on Strike Out Application (want of Prosecution)
- Outcome
- Appeal struck out for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out, Want of Prosecution, Appeal Under Section 149
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Edward Hamilton
Appellant
QBE a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (section 149) / Decision on Strike Out Application (want of Prosecution)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution
Ratio Decidendi
The court struck out the appeal for want of prosecution because counsel could not contact the appellant and the respondent applied for strike out.
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. 228/2005 UNDER The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 149 of the Act BETWEEN DAVID EDWARD HAMILTON of HAMILTON Appellant (Appeal No. AI 582/03) AND QBE a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent HEARING at HAMILTON on 19 July 2005 APPEARANCES/COUNSEL D Heperi for appellant P Jegatheeson for respondent DECISION AS TO STRIKE OUT OF JUDGE J CADENHEAD [1] Mr Heperi advised he could not contact the appellant. The respondent applied that the matter be struck out for want of prosecution. I direct that the matter be struck out for want of prosecution. https://openlawnz-my.sharepoint.com/personal/andrew_openlaw_nz/Documents/ACC Decisions (DC appeals)/2005/228- 2005.doc AE DATED at WELLINGTON this 28th day of July 2005 J Cadenhead District Court Judge 228-2005 2