Clarke v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not respond to the Registrar's correspondence or otherwise prosecute the appeal after counsel withdrew; a prior warning was given that the appeal would be struck out if there was no response, and that failure justified dismissal for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] NZACC 17
- Parties
- Appellant: Marilyn Frances Clarke; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 February 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Decision on the Papers; Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Failure to Prosecute, Withdrawal of Counsel, Case Management
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Marilyn Frances Clarke
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Decision on the Papers; Dismissed 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 justifies dismissal
- 3 Effect of counsel's withdrawal for lack of instruction on prosecution of appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not respond to the Registrar's correspondence or otherwise prosecute the appeal after counsel withdrew; a prior warning was given that the appeal would be struck out if there was no response, and that failure justified dismissal for want of prosecution.
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. 1 7 /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 MARILYN FRANCES CLARKE Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 223/95) 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 THE PAPERS On 5 October 1995 Ms Clarke gave notice of her intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on 8 September 1995. Mr G Anson, solicitor of Mcleod & Partners, on 20 December 1995 advised that he was acting for Ms Clarke. However on 22 August 1996 Mr Anson advised the Court that as he had not received instruction from Ms Clarke he was withdrawing as counsel. The Registrar wrote to Ms Clarke on 11 September 1996 and 29 November 1996. On 29 November 1996 Ms Clarke was advised that if she had not responded to the Registrar's letters by 15 January 1997 her appeal would be placed before the Court with a request that it be struck out due to want of prosecution. 2 As Ms Clarke has failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence or made any other attempt to prosecute another appeal I dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this ( O' day of February 1997 A W Middleton District Court Judge dc223-95.doc (nl)