Butler v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was struck out because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with the court timetable, did not file required submissions or provide any acceptable explanation, and the resulting delay was inordinate and inexcusable.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] NZACC 182
- Parties
- Appellant: Sandra Butler; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 September 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / On the Papers; Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal struck out for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Timetable Compliance, Appeal Procedure, Review of Tribunal Decision
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sandra Butler
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / On the Papers; Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable
- 3 Whether failure to comply with the timetable justified dismissal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was struck out because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with the court timetable, did not file required submissions or provide any acceptable explanation, and the resulting delay was inordinate and inexcusable.
Court Disposition
Appeal struck out for want of prosecution.
Orders
- Appeal struck out for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Decision No 1 8 2 /97 IN THE MATTER of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal against Review Decision No. 65.95.269 BETWEEN SANDRA BUTLER of Perth, Australia (Reference DCA 296/94) Appellant AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE ON THE PAPERS On the 29th of December 1994 Sandra Butler lodged an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on the 7th day of December 1994. The hearing of the appeal was set down for the 18th of September 1995. On the date of the hearing a written request was received from the solicitor for the appellant requesting that the matter be dealt with by way of written submissions. That request was granted and Judge Middleton issued a timetable order to the effect that the appellant's submissions were to be filed by 28 September 1995, the respondent to reply to same by 5th October 1995 with any final submissions from the appellant to be filed by 15th October 1995. 2 The Registrar advises that no such submissions have ever been received by the appellant despite several reminder letters and telephone calls. The file discloses that the appellant has been given considerable latitude in that several deadlines previously imposed have been allowed to pass because of further promises of completion of matters outstanding by counsel for the appellant. A final letter from the Registrar was forwarded to counsel for the appellant on 10 April indicating that if written submissions were not received within 14 days the file would be referred to a judge with a view to the appeal being struck out for want of prosecution. I am informed that as of today's date no such submissions have been received and that there is nothing on the file to indicate that the delay occasioned in this appeal has been other than inordinate and inexcusable. I accordingly direct that this appeal be struck out for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this 15 day of 1997 MJ Beattie District Court Judge Butler.doc KD