McClenaghan v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Because the appellant failed to respond to repeated requests and did not take steps to prosecute the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 103
- Parties
- Appellant: ROSEMARY DAWN McCLENAGHAN; Respondent: ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 26 April 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 S91 / Decision on the Papers (appeal Struck Out for Want of Prosecution)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Procedural Non Compliance, 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
ROSEMARY DAWN McCLENAGHAN
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 Struck Out for Want of Prosecution)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether failure to respond to Registrar's correspondence justified dismissal
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant failed to respond to repeated requests and did not take steps to prosecute the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal 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. 103 /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 ROSEMARY DAWN McCLENAGHAN of Tauranga Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 494/98) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE ON THE PAPERS On 23 November 1998 Mrs R D McClenaghan gave notice of her intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on 22 October 1998. Five letters were sent to the appellant asking for submissions, dated 22 December 1998, 3 and 19 February 1999 and 3 and 29 March 1999. A further letter dated 21 April 1999 was sent advising Mrs McClenaghan that her deadline of 12 April 1999 had passed and the matter would now be referred to a District Court Judge with a recommendation that the appeal be struck out for want of prosecution. As Mrs Mcclenaghan has failed to respond to the Registrar's correspondence and made any attempt to prosecute this appeal, I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this 26 th day of April 1999 M J Beattie District Court Judge dca494-98.doc (nr)