Kerr v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal by not responding to repeated Registrar communications and counsel indicated withdrawal, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] NZACC 56
- Parties
- Appellant: Wendy Louise Kerr; Respondent: Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Determination on the Papers; Interlocutory Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Procedure, Want of Prosecution, Striking Out
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wendy Louise Kerr
Appellant
Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 91 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 / Determination on the Papers; Interlocutory Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution
- 2 Whether counsel's withdrawal and the appellant's failure to respond to Registrar directions justify dismissal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal by not responding to repeated Registrar communications and counsel indicated withdrawal, justifying dismissal 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 AUCKLAND Decision No. 56 /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 WENDY LOUISE KERR Appellant (Appeal No. DCA 195/97) AND ACCIDENT REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION INSURANCE CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE ON THE PAPERS On 23 June 1997 Miss W L Kerr gave notice of her intention to lodge an appeal against a decision of a Review Officer which was issued on 30 September 1996. On 2 July 1997 and 26 February 1998, the Registrar wrote to Miss Kerr's counsel, Andrew Cadenhead, requesting him to file submissions by 14 March 1998. On 6 May 1998, Mr Cadenhead wrote to the Registrar advising he had had no instructions and that if he did not receive any within 14 days he would seek leave to withdraw. On 18 August 1998, leave was sought to withdraw as counsel. The Registrar then wrote to Miss Kerr on 28 September 1998, 17 November 1998, 9 December 1998 and 13 January 1999 asking her if she wished to proceed with the appeal and when submissions would be filed. 2 On 5 February 1999 the Registrar wrote to the appellant advising that if she failed to . respond, the appeal would be placed before the Court with a recommendation that it be struck out for want of prosecution. As Miss Kerr 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 qth day of march 1999 M J Beattie District Court Judge dca195-97.doc (nr)