Manahi v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to appear and the court applied R.17 of the ARCI Appeals Regulations 1992 to dismiss the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 270
- Parties
- Appellant: Geoffrey Manahi; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 September 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 (s.91) / Reserved Judgment / Dismissal for Non Appearance
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Dismissal for Non Appearance, Procedural Rules, ARCI Appeals Regulations R.17
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Geoffrey Manahi
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 (s.91) / Reserved Judgment / Dismissal for Non Appearance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure of the appellant to appear
- 2 Application of R.17 of the ARCI Appeals Regulations 1992 to dismiss an appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to appear and the court applied R.17 of the ARCI Appeals Regulations 1992 to dismiss the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed pursuant to R.17 of the ARCI Appeals Regulations 1992
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT PALMERSTON NORTH Decision No. 270 /99 IN THE MATTER of The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal pursuant to Section 91 of the Act BETWEEN GEOFFREY MANAHI DCA 535/98 Appellant AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent APPEARANCES: No appearance of appellant Mr J D Palmer counsel for respondent RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE When this matter was called on 27 July 1999, Mr G. Manahi, the appellant, did not appear. Counsel for the respondent Mr J D Palmer was excused at 2.40 pm. Pursuant to R.17 of ARCI Appeals Regs. 1992 this appeal is dismissed. DATED at WELLINGTON this 2and day of September 1999 M JBeattie District Court Judge 535-98Manahi.doc(gm)