Batt v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to respond to the Deputy Registrar's correspondence, did not provide instructions after counsel withdrew, and made no attempt to prosecute the appeals, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] NZACC 56
- Parties
- Appellant: Michelle Jane Batt; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 April 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Decision on the Papers; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Want of Prosecution, Withdrawal of Counsel, Review Officer Decision
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michelle Jane Batt
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Decision on the Papers; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeals should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to respond and prosecute
- 2 Whether withdrawal of counsel and lack of instructions justify dismissal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to respond to the Deputy Registrar's correspondence, did not provide instructions after counsel withdrew, and made no attempt to prosecute the appeals, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- Appeals DCA 261/95 and DCA 262/95 dismissed for want of prosecution
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 56/ 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 MICHELLE JANE BATT of Westport Appellant (Appeal Nos. DCA 261/ 95 and 262/95) 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 15 November 1995 MacPherson and Co, acting on behalf of Ms Batt, gave notice of their intention to lodge two appeals against decisions of a Review Officer which were issued on 16 October 1995. On 4 November 1996 MacPherson and Co advised that as they were unable to obtain instructions from Ms Batt they were withdrawing from the appeal On 15 November 1996 the Deputy Registrar wrote to Ms Batt asking her to advise whether or not she wished to continue with her appeals. Ms Batt has not replied. 2 The Deputy Registrar attempted to contact Ms Batt by way of telephone, on 4 April 1997, however he was unsuccessful. As Ms Batt has failed to respond to the Deputy Registrar's correspondence or made any attempt to prosecute her appeals, I dismiss the appeals for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this | 8 day of April 1997 A W Middleton District Court Judge batt.doc(sw)