Lockhart v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal is dismissed pursuant to section 161(3)(a) and (b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal and failed to appear at the directions hearing despite being given notice and opportunity to do so.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] NZACC 195
- Parties
- Appellant: Julie Lockhart; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 23 August 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / Directions Hearing; Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(a) and (b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Non Appearance, Practice Note Compliance, Appeal Under Section 149, Section 161(3) Dismissal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Julie Lockhart
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 / Directions Hearing; Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-appearance
- 2 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
- 3 Whether sufficient notice and opportunity to prosecute was given to the appellant
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed pursuant to section 161(3)(a) and (b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal and failed to appear at the directions hearing despite being given notice and opportunity to do so.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(a) and (b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001
Orders
- Appeal dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(a) and (b) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT DUNEDIN Decision No. 195 /2007 IN THE MATTER of the injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act BETWEEN JULIE LOCKHART (Al 197/06 Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] On 4 May 2006 the appellant, through her Counsel, Mr A Cadenhead, lodged a Notice of Appeal with the Registry from a Review Decision dated 10 April 2006. [2] Requests from the Registry to Mr Cadenhead of 31 July 2006, and 3 October 2006 about progress drew a response from Mr Cadenhead that he had lost contact with the appellant and for this reason he had not filed any submissions as required by the Practice Note. [3] By letter dated 22 May 2007 Mr Cadenhead advised that his correspondence to the appellant had been returned 'Not known at this address' and he accordingly withdrew as Counsel. [4] On 20 June 2007, the Registry were advised by the appellant of her new address at Arrowtown and by letter dated 21 June 2007 the appellant was written to by registered 2 letter requiring her to file her submissions or to seek advice from the local Citizens Advice Bureau. 5] By registered letter dated 23 July 2007 the appellant was advised that this appeal would be listed for hearing in the Dunedin District Court on Thursday, 9 August 2007 at 11.45 a.m. for a Directions Hearing. That letter also advised her of the possibility of the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. [6] On 9 August 2007 this appeal was called before me and Mr I Hunt represented the respondent.. There was no appearance of the appellant, or of anyone representing her and there was no advice received of any reason for her non-appearance [7] Mr Hunt made application that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3) on the basis of the appellant's non-appearance and of there being a lack of prosecution of the appeal. (8] I find that both grounds for dismissal have been made out and accordingly this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3) (a) and (b) of the Act. DATED at AUCKLAND this 123 day of August 2007 M J Beattie District Court Judge