Paterika v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to take proper steps to prosecute it: he did not file submissions despite directions, did not appear at the hearing, counsel had withdrawn after losing contact, and the Registry had notified him at his last known address, justifying dismissal under s161(3)(b) of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] NZACC 265
- Parties
- Appellant: Filisi Paterika; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 November 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / Post Directions Hearing; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Failure to Prosecute, Court Directions, Withdrawal of Counsel, Service by Registry
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Filisi Paterika
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / Post Directions Hearing; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution under s161(3)(b) of the Act
- 2 Whether the appellant complied with court directions and the Practice Note
- 3 Whether notice of the hearing was properly given to the appellant at his last known address
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to take proper steps to prosecute it: he did not file submissions despite directions, did not appear at the hearing, counsel had withdrawn after losing contact, and the Registry had notified him at his last known address, justifying dismissal under s161(3)(b) of the Act.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to s161(3)(b) of the Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT PALMERSTON NORTH Decision No. 265 /2008 IN THE MATTER of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act BETWEEN FILISI PATERIKA (Al 113/05) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent HEARD at PALMERSTON NORTH on 23 October 2008 DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] On 28 February 2005 the appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal with the Registry from a Review Decision dated 3 February 2005. [2] At the time this Notice of Appeal was filed the appellant was represented by Mr John Miller, Barrister. (3] Despite numerous requests from the Registry to Mr Miller, submissions in support of the appeal were not forthcoming, as is required by the Practice Note. [4] On 2 July 2008, the Court made a Directions Order requiring the appellant to file and serve submissions within 21 days of that day. (5] Submissions were not forthcoming as directed and at a further Directions Hearing before His Honour Judge Ongley on 26 August 2008, Mr Miller advised that he had lost 113.05 (pg) 2 contact with the appellant and sought leave to withdraw as counsel. That request was granted by His Honour. [6] Mr Miller advised the Registry of the appellant's last known address and advice of the hearing for Thursday, 23 October 2008, was given in a letter dated 1 October 2008, to the appellant at an address in Palmerston North. [7] The appellant did not appear at the time and place as notified and Mr S Hack, Counsel for the Respondent, sought that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. [8] I am satisfied that the appellant has failed to take proper steps to prosecute this appeal, and indeed the appeal is no further advanced since the date the Notice of Appeal was lodged back in February 2005. There being no appearance of the appellant today is a further indication of a lack of intention to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Act. DATED this Str November 2008 ... M J Beattie District Court Judge