Mayall v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prosecute it, having not responded to repeated registrar correspondence or to attend or instruct representation, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] NZACC 7
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Mayall; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 January 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Decision on the Papers; Appeal Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Prosecution, Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Non‑compliance With Directions
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Mayall
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Decision on the Papers; Appeal Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to comply with directions and to attend
- 2 Whether notices and registrar correspondence were sufficient to inform the appellant of consequences of non‑response
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prosecute it, having not responded to repeated registrar correspondence or to attend or instruct representation, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON Decision No. 3/97 UNDER The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 91 of the Act BETWEEN PETER MAYALL of Nelson Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 145/93) 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 19 October 1993, Mr Mayall gave notice of his intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on 3 August 1993. On 16 December 1993 the Registrar asked Mr Mayall to file his submissions within 21 days. The appeal was set down for hearing on 31 January 1995, which was changed to a directions conference as the appeal raised a medical question and was adjourned. The appeal was rescheduled to be heard on 24 April 1996 and was granted an adjournment by consent on 17 April 1996. Despite letters dated 5 August and 28 August 1996, no response was received from Mr Mayall's Solicitors. On 21 November 1996 Mr Mayall's Solicitors were informed by letter that the appeal would be heard in February 1997 and on 28th November 1996 a notice of hearing was issued. A letter was received from Duncan Cotterill, Solicitors for the appellant on 29 November 1996 stating that they had had no contact with their client, but had been forwarding all correspondence to his last known address. On 14 January 1997, the registrar wrote to Duncan Cotterill seeking confirmation that Mr Mayall or his representative would appear at the hearing and enclosed a letter to 2 be forwarded to Mr Mayall informing him that if no response was received before 23 January 1997, the appeal would be placed before the Court with a recommendation that it be struck out for want of prosecution. As Mr Mayall has 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 Someday of January 1997 beennadubai A W Middleton District Court Judge dc14593.doc(rd)