Lambrechtse v Accident Compensation Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2013] NZACC 49 ACR 359/10 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN TANYA LAMBRECHTSE Appellant AND DENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 27 February 2013 Appearances: No appearance for the appellant Ms E Bergin for the Corporation Minute: 27 February 2013 MINUTES OF JUDGE RODERICK JOYCE QC [1] Ms Bergin appears today for the Corporation. There is no appearance of the appellant Tanya Lambrechtse. [2] Ms Lambrechtse gave notice on 17 June 2010 of an appeal against a review decision made 7 May that year. The registry sent her the standard acknowledgement letter upon receipt of that notice and outlined what was then expected of her. [3] On 20 July 2010 she advised the registry that she was seeking legal representation and sought more time. On 24 August 2010 she emailed the Corporation again explaining the family had had a what she called a 'horror run' with her father being admitted to hospital with what turned out to be lung cancer and on that account sought some leeway which obviously was allowed. [4] Nothing more having happened in the meantime, on 8 April 2011 the registry wrote to her to remind her that submissions had yet to be filed and sending a withdrawal notice if that was her intention, It appears that there was then a conversation between her then partner a man called 'Lance' and the registry, That appears to have involved him advising it that to his appreciation Ms Lambrechtse was not continuing the appeal and that she had in fact left the country. [5] Subsequently the registry was in touch with 'Lance' whose surname is Priest to confirm the conversation and seeking from him any help he might be able to provide in terms of contact details. And shortly thereafter it also emailed the Corporation seeking its assistance. The Corporation was at that point reluctant to apply for a strike out, being concerned on that account about the lack of up to date contact details. [6] Nothing having happened in the meantime, the registry on 8 February sent a notice of today's directions hearing to the last known address of Ms Lambrechtse which was at Takanini. Predictably perhaps, that has been returned undelivered and in the meantime, just to be clear about it, the registry has not had any help from anyone who might have been able to provide it as to any other and present way of making contact with Ms Lambrechtse. [7] The conclusion I draw from all this is that indeed it most probably is the case that Ms Lambrechtse (who apparently parted company with Mr Priest) has left New Zealand and that his advice that she did not intend to prosecute the appeal was correct. [8] Most certainly it is obvious that the appeal has simply not been prosecuted with due diligence thus I exercise the power I have under r 14.24 of the District Courts Rules 2009 to dismiss it on that account, and it is dismissed accordingly. Roderick Joyce QC District Court Judge ACR 359-10-Minute.doc (aw)