Roche v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant and his representative failed to comply with repeated requests from the Registrar to file submissions and made no attempt to prosecute the appeal, justifying striking out for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 57
- Parties
- Appellant: Mark Trevor Roche; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 (section 91) / Decision on the Papers; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Striking Out for Want of Prosecution, 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
Mark Trevor Roche
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 (section 91) / Decision on the Papers; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution due to failure to file submissions or respond to Registrar's directions
- 2 Whether Registrar's requests and notices triggered the court's power to dismiss
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant and his representative failed to comply with repeated requests from the Registrar to file submissions and made no attempt to prosecute the appeal, justifying striking out 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. 5 7/99 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN MARK TREVOR ROCHE Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 272/97) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE ON THE PAPERS On 22 August 1997 Mr Roche gave notice of his intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on 31 July 1997. On 22 July 1998, 24 August 1998 and 7 September 1998 the Registrar wrote to Mr Roche's counsel, David G Slater, asking him to file his submissions by 14 September 1998. On 16 September 1998 counsel informed the Registrar that Mr Roche had moved and he could not contact him. A further two letters were sent to counsel on 18 September 1998 and 23 October 1998 requesting submissions, with no response 2 On 26 November 1998 the Registrar wrote to Mr Slater advising that if no steps were . taken the appeal would be placed before the Court with a recommendation that it be struck out for want of prosecution. As Mr Roche or his representative have failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence or made any attempt to prosecute the appeal, I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this qday of March 1999 M J Beattie District Court Judge dea272-97.doc (nr)