Vince v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 36 /96 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 89 93 1 0375 of the Act BETWEEN JILLIAN PATRICIA VINCE of Christchurch Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 39/93) 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 This appeal was lodged with the Court on 14 May 1994. It was heard by Judge Ongley on 18 April 1994 when it was adjourned to enable the appellant to adduce further evidence. The Registrar wrote to the appellant's solicitor on 15 August 1994 requesting briefs of the proposed evidence. On 26 August 1994 the Registrar acknowledged the appellant's solicitor's letter in which it was stated that the solicitor was not ready to proceed. No further information has been received nor have the briefs of evidence. On 28 November 1995 the appellant's advocate advised the Registrar that their solicitors had sought further instructions from the appellant on a number of occasions and that her last known telephone number had been disconnected. The advocate considered that in the absence of further instructions it appeared that the appeal could not proceed and that it should be treated as having been withdrawn. On 18 January 1996 the Registrar wrote to the appellant at her last known address requesting her acknowledgment that the appeal was to proceed on 2 February 1996. The appellant's solicitors advised the Registrar that they had received instructions to act for the appellant on her appeal but that further progress was conditional on her successful application for civil legal aid. The Registrar wrote to the appellant's solicitors on 11 April 1996 requesting information as to the progress of the appeal. On 7 May 1996 the appellant's solicitors advised the Registrar that attempts to communicate with the appellant had not produced any 2 replies from her and that accordingly they had no instructions to proceed with the appeal. In view of the time which has now lapsed since Judge Ongley's decision and the failure of the appellant to communicate with her solicitors, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this &7uh day of May 1996 A W Middleton District Court Judge ica39-93. doc (nr)