Munro v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant, through his advocate, failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal with due diligence and no submissions were filed despite requests and service; dismissal under s161(3)(b) is warranted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] NZACC 125
- Parties
- Appellant: Neil Munro; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Compensation Act 2001 (s149) / Decision on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (district Court)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to section 161(3)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
- Legal Topics
- Want of Prosecution, Dismissal of Appeal, Failure to Prosecute, Registry Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Neil Munro
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Compensation Act 2001 (s149) / Decision on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (district Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence
- 3 Application of s161(3)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant, through his advocate, failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal with due diligence and no submissions were filed despite requests and service; dismissal under s161(3)(b) is warranted.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to section 161(3)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to s161(3)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON [2012] NZACC 125 IN THE MATTER of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act BETWEEN NEIL MUNRO (Al 31/09) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE [1] On 22 January 2009 the appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal from a review decision with the Appeal Registry. That appeal was lodged by the appellant's Advocate, Mr M Gibson. [2] Despite requests from the Appeal Registry to Mr Gibson to file his submissions in support of the appeal, no positive step has been taken on the appellant's behalf to prosecute this appeal. (3] On 14 March 2012 the Registry received an application from Counsel for the Respondent for the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution, and a copy of this application was served on Mr Gibson. [4] Since that application was lodged no step has been taken on behalf of the appellant to prosecute this appeal, and I consider that the evidence is quite clear that there has been a failure to prosecute this appeal with due diligence by the 2 appellant, and accordingly this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to section 161(3)(b) of the Act. DATED this 12 day of 2012 April M J Beattie District Court Judge