Hollis v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with court directions, failed to file submissions or instruct counsel despite multiple undertakings and notices, and did not engage with the Registrar, justifying termination of the proceeding.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] NZACC 268
- Parties
- Appellant: Paul Martin Hollis; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 6 November 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 162 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 / Directions Hearings; Application Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Compliance With Directions, Service and Notice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paul Martin Hollis
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 162 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 / Directions Hearings; Application Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether the appellant complied with court directions and notice requirements
- 3 Whether there was a genuine intention to prosecute or withdraw the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with court directions, failed to file submissions or instruct counsel despite multiple undertakings and notices, and did not engage with the Registrar, justifying termination of the proceeding.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH WELLINGTON REGISTRY Decision No. 268 /2008 Al 194/06 IN THE MATTER The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 AND IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to appeal to the High Court pursuant to s. 162 of the Act BETWEEN PAUL MARTIN HOLLIS Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent HEARD: 22 October 2008 DATE OF THIS DECISION: 6 November 2008 APPEARANCES/COUNSEL No appearance of or for appellant Mr I Hunt, counsel for ACC DECISION OF JUDGE P F BARBER [1] Notice of Appeal against the Review Decision of Ms V Thompson dated 7 April 2006 was filed on 3 May 2006. After a number of efforts the Registrar made contact with Mr Hollis on 23 July 2007 and he agreed that the matter be set down for a Directions Hearing in Christchurch on 7 August 2007 at 2.15 pm. The Registrar made contact with Mr Hollis on 1 February 2007 when Mr Hollis undertook to file his submissions within a reasonable time of his doctor returning from holiday; but did not do so Mr Hollis appeared on 7 August 2007 as arranged and agreed to file submissions within 6 weeks of that date and advised that he would be instructing legal counsel. An Order was made accordingly. 2 [5] On 19 March 2008 Mr Hollis advised the Registrar that he might withdraw the appeal. [6] The matter was set down for 2.15 pm 4 June 2008 at Christchurch and appropriate notice given. On 3 July 2008 Mr Hollis telephoned the Registrar that he had only just received notice of the directions hearing for 4 June 2008 as he had been "away" and that, in any case, he was still seeking legal representation. [7] Despite many endeavours since then, the Registrar has been unable to make contact with the appellant except for a telephone discussion of 14 July 2008 when Mr Hollis advised he was in the course of instructing another lawyer. (8] Appropriate procedures were followed to give notice of a Directions Hearing of 9 September 2008 and then again on 22 October 2008. [9] The Registrar had also ascertained, on 5 September 2008, that the lawyers whom the appellant said he was instructing had had no contact whatsoever from the appellant. [10] I hearby confirm that on 22 October 2008 I dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution in the light of the background outlined above. Judge P F Barber District Court Judge WELLINGTON Al 194-06.doc(jeh)