Healey v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to respond to repeated notices from the Registrar and made no attempt to prosecute the appeal after her representative ceased acting.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] NZACC 137
- Parties
- Appellant: Marie Patricia Healey; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 November 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, S 91 / Dismissed for Want of Prosecution (pre Hearing)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Failure to Prosecute
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Marie Patricia Healey
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, S 91 / Dismissed for Want of Prosecution (pre Hearing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to respond to Registrar's correspondence and prosecute the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to respond to repeated notices from the Registrar and made no attempt to prosecute the appeal after her representative ceased acting.
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. 137 / 96 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN MARIE PATRICIA HEALEY of Christchurch Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 95/93) 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 26 August 1993 Injury Compensation Services, acting on behalf of Mrs Healey gave notice of their intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on 16 August 1993. On 8 February 1994 a Memorandum to the Parties was issued, it anticipated that the appeal would be heard in Christchurch during the week of 7 March 1994. However a hearing did not take place. On 18 February 1996 the Registrar was advised that Injury Compensation Services were no longer acting for the appellant and that she would conduct her own appeal. The Registrar has on three occasions written to Mrs Healey advising her of possible hearing dates. Mrs Healey has not replied. On 22 October 1996 the Registrar wrote to Mrs Healey advising her that if she had not replied to his correspondence her appeal would be referred to the Authority. 2 As Mrs Healey 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 2 2 d day of November 1996 A W\Middleton District Court Judge DCA95-93.doc(19)