Thompson v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant and any appointed representative failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence and made no attempt to prosecute the appeal despite notice, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 19
- Parties
- Appellant: Gary Thompson; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 February 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / On the Papers; Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Want of Prosecution, Service and Notice, Withdrawal of Counsel, Legal Aid
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gary Thompson
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / On the Papers; Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether adequate notice was given to the appellant
- 3 Effect of withdrawal of counsel and refusal of legal aid on the prosecution of the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant and any appointed representative failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence and made no attempt to prosecute the appeal despite notice, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 19 / 99 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN GARY THOMPSON Of Christchurch Appellant (Ref: DCA 144/97) 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 On 15 May 1997, Mr Andrew Cadenhead, solicitor for the appellant gave notice of his intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on 7 April 1997. Early delays in filing submissions were attributed to the appellant's application for legal aid which was subsequently declined. This prompted the appellant to dispense with Mr Cadenhead as Counsel. Mr Cadenhead sought to withdraw on 3 February 1998. N On 13 August 1998 a Notice of Hearing placing the appeal on the Reserve List for the Christchurch circuit in September 1998 was sent to Mr Thompson's last known address. This was not acknowledged and, after repeated attempts at contact by telephone and through the Christchurch ACC office, the appeal was removed from the Reserve List. Further letters on 21 August and 28 September 1998 have gone unanswered and have not been returned by the Postal service. On 22 December 1998 the Registrar again wrote to Mr Thompson seeking a decision by 22. January 1999 on whether or not he wished to proceed with the appeal and, if no response was received by that date, the appeal would be placed before the Court for consideration. As Mr Thompson or any appointed representative has failed to respond to the Registrar's latest correspondence or made any attempt to prosecute the appeal, I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this day of February 1999. A W Middleton District Court Judge 2