Elliott v Accident Compensation Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 210 / 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 GLORIA JEAN ELLIOTT of Sydney, Australia Appellant (Ref: DCA 145/96) 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 23 May 1996, Mr L J Crozier, solicitor for the appellant gave notice of his intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer, which was issued on 30 April 1996. Despite a number of requests between December 1996 and March 1997, submissions on behalf of the appellant were not forthcoming. On 21 May 1997 Mr Andrew Cadenhead advised that he had been instructed as counsel for the appellant and was seeking specialist medical reports which could delay the process for some time. The appeal was scheduled for hearing three times in the ensuing 14 months but, on each occasion, the fixture was vacated while awaiting further specialist medical reports. On 25 November 1998 Mr Cadenhead advised that the appellant had moved to Australia and he was having difficulty in obtaining instruction. On 11 December 1998 he advised that the appellant was permanently resident in Australia and that the matter could be dealt with on the papers. On a number of occasions between December 1998 and May 1999 Mr Cadenhead was requested, by letter and telephone, to file submissions on behalf of the appellant in order that the matter could be resolved. On 10 May 1999 Mr Cadenhead advised that he had been unable to contact the appellant and accordingly sought leave to withdraw as counsel. He provided the appellant's last known address in Australia. On 21 June 1999 the Registrar wrote to the appellant advising of the current situation and requesting that she advise, within 28 days, whether or not she wished the appeal to proceed. She was advised that if there was no reply by 26 July 1999 the matter would be placed before the District Court Judge with a recommendation that the appeal be struck out for want of prosecution. As the appellant or a representative have failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence or made any further attempt to prosecute the appeal, I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this 4 day of August 1999 quemadlib A W Middleton District Court Judge