Mahuika v Accident Compensation Corporation
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to provide written submissions, failed to maintain contact with the court despite attempts by the Registrar, and took no steps to prosecute the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] NZACC 170
- Parties
- Appellant: Susan Christina Mahuika; Respondent: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 4 August 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Accident Insurance Act 1998 S152 / Decision on the Papers; Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Want of Prosecution, Determination on Papers, Withdrawal of Counsel, Failure to Prosecute
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Susan Christina Mahuika
Appellant
Accident Compensation Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Accident Insurance Act 1998 S152 / Decision on the Papers; Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal could be determined on the papers without written submissions
- 2 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's failure to prosecute
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to provide written submissions, failed to maintain contact with the court despite attempts by the Registrar, and took no steps to prosecute the appeal.
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. 170/2003 IN THE MATTER of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 152 of the Act BETWEEN SUSAN CHRISTINA MAHUIKA (AI 262/01) Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE P F BARBER ON PAPERS [1] This appeal was registered on 8 June 2001. [2] On 4 July 2001 Mrs Mahuika’s legal representative advised that he would not prepare written submissions and he asked that the appeal be determined on the papers. However the Corporation did not consent to that course without written submissions. [3] Mrs Mahuika’s legal representative advised that he had withdrawn from the appeal and that Mrs Mahuika would represent herself. [4] From July 2001 to August 2002 the Registrar made several attempts to contact the appellant. However he did not have, nor was he able to find a current address or telephone number. [5] On 28 August 2002 the Registrar contacted, by telephone, Mrs Mahuika’s previous employer who advised that he would pass on to Mrs Mahuika the Registrar’s concerns. The following day Mrs Mahuika telephoned the Registrar. She explained that she thought her dealings with the Corporation were over. She undertook to consider her position and to advise the Registrar, within 7 days of her intentions. 2 [6] The appellant has not made any further contact with the Registrar nor has she done anything to prosecute her appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution. DATED at WELLINGTON this 4th day of August 2003 ________________________ Judge P F Barber District Court Judge Wellington Ai262-01-mahuika.doc(afw)