Gentry v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence or otherwise take steps to prosecute the appeal, justifying strike out under the court's inherent jurisdiction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] NZACC 48
- Parties
- Appellant: Henry Gentry; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, S91 / District Court Determination on Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Review Decision, Want of Prosecution, Strike Out
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Henry Gentry
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, S91 / District Court Determination on Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether failure to respond to Registrar's correspondence justified dismissal
- 3 Effect of a subsequently issued review decision on the appeal status
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence or otherwise take steps to prosecute the appeal, justifying strike out under the court's inherent jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 48 / 97 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN HENRY GENTRY of Kaitaia Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 233/95) 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 27 October 1995 Mr Gentry gave notice of his intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a review officer which was issued on 4 August 1995. On 18 October 1996 I issued a memorandum to the parties, directing that the file be returned to the Corporation in order that a new review hearing be convened. The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation issued a new review decision on 17 December 1996. That review decision did not change the status of this appeal. The Deputy Registrar wrote to Mr Gentry on 10 February 1997. Mr Gentry was asked whether he wished to have his appeal set down for hearing or have it determined on the papers. There has been no response from Mr Gentry. 2 The Deputy Registrar wrote again to Mr Gentry on 14 March 1997. Mr Gentry was advised that if he had not advised the Registrar of his intentions before 28 March 1997 his appeal would be placed before the Court with a request that it be struck out due to lack of prosecution. As Mr Gentry has failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence or made any attempt to prosecute the appeal, I dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this / 4th day of April 1997 queunadeda A W Middleton District Court Judge dc23395.doc(rd)