Staite v Accident Compensation Corporation
The adjournment was refused because the costs orders against counsel were unrelated to the merits of the appeals, the appellants were not prejudiced by proceeding, and adjourning would cause unnecessary delay without altering counsel's position.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZACC 136
- Parties
- Appellant: ESTATE OF R STAITE; Respondent: ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 28 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Compensation Act 2001 (s 149) / Pre Hearing (adjournment Application)
- Outcome
- Adjournment refused; appeal will proceed as previously directed.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Costs Against Counsel, Fairness, Representation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ESTATE OF R STAITE
Appellant
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Compensation Act 2001 (s 149) / Pre Hearing (adjournment Application)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an adjournment should be granted
- 2 Whether appellants are prejudiced by costs ordered against their advocate
- 3 Whether non-payment of costs by counsel should prevent appeals being heard
Ratio Decidendi
The adjournment was refused because the costs orders against counsel were unrelated to the merits of the appeals, the appellants were not prejudiced by proceeding, and adjourning would cause unnecessary delay without altering counsel's position.
Court Disposition
Adjournment refused; appeal will proceed as previously directed.
Orders
- Application for adjournment of the three appeals refused.
- This appeal will proceed as previously directed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT DUNEDIN [2014] NZACC 136 ACR 894/10 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN ESTATE OF R STAITE Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Date of Minute: 28 May 2014 MINUTE OF JUDGE L G POWELL [1] The Registry has received a request for an adjournment of three appeals, including the present appeal. All three appellants are represented by Mr Gibson as advocate, and are currently set down for substantive hearings in Invercargill on 1 and 2 July 2014. [2] Mr Gibson has advised by email that "he cannot advise [his] clients that they have any prospect of being treated fairly under the existing regimen", and therefore seeks an adjournment until "sometime after 20 September this year". No other grounds are identified in support of the application. The adjournment application is neither supported nor opposed by the respondent. [3] The issue of fairness to which Mr Gibson refers apparently relates to orders that I made in relation to some 19 unrelated appeals on which Mr Gibson is acting, where costs of $75 in respect of each of those appeals was ordered against Mr Gibson personally as a result of his non-attendance at a callover in Dunedin on 12 March 2014. As part of that order I directed that until those costs pertaining to an individual appeal had been paid by Mr Gibson, that appeal could not be set down for hearing while Mr Gibson continued to act. Mr Gibson has not appealed the orders made. [4] Having considered Mr Gibson's application I cannot see any basis upon which the three appeals should be adjourned. The orders made against Mr Gibson are quite unrelated to the appeals set down for hearing and the appellants in the present appeals are clearly not prejudiced by the appeals proceeding. In addition, it is difficult to see how adjourning the appeals to a date after 20 September will in any way change the position or indeed any particular significance of the 20 September date. On the contrary if the appeals are not heard as scheduled there are otherwise no hearings proposed for Invercargill for the balance of 2014 and it is important that the appellants avail themselves of the opportunity to have the appeals heard without delay. [5] The application for adjournment of the three appeals, including the present appeal, is therefore refused. This appeal will proceed as previously directed. Judge L G Powell District Court Judge