New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non‑prosecution

Legal area

Court

3 May 2017

MATTHEW JOHN YOUNG v THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON [2017] NZSC 60 ]

Citation

[2017] NZSC 60
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to progress the application, did not respond to the Registrar's attempts to contact him, and did not rectify non‑compliance after formal notice under s 338(2) Criminal Procedure Act 2011; the appeal to the Court of Appeal had in any event been abandoned under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, and the applicant's name was already in the public domain.
5 Sept 2013

Meihana v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2013] NZACC 282
Court

District Court

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prosecute it with due diligence and the Court properly exercised its power under s161(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 after giving a final opportunity to comply.
21 Jun 2012

MISIUK v R SC 133/2011

Citation

SC 133/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because they lacked merit and the applicant had not prosecuted the matters by failing to file timely submissions; the applicant's deportation was noted but dismissal was grounded on lack of merit and non-prosecution.
21 Oct 2011

Eaton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 301
Court

District Court

The application for leave to appeal was struck out for non-prosecution because the appellant failed to file required submissions and did not respond to repeated reminders, justifying dismissal.
14 Oct 2011

Bowden v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 294
Court

District Court

The appeal was struck out because the appellant ceased instructing counsel, failed to respond to repeated registry directions and correspondence, the Registry was unable to contact her, and there had been more than two and a half years without substantive action; accordingly the Court exercised its power under s 161(3)(b) to strike out the appeal for non-prosecution.
1 Sept 2011

Crompton v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 238
Court

District Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to prosecute the application: required submissions were not filed, the applicant did not respond to registry communications, and counsel withdrew, warranting dismissal under the court's power to dismiss for non-prosecution.
29 Aug 2011

Pattison v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 236
Court

District Court

The application for leave to appeal was struck out because the appellant and her counsel repeatedly failed to comply with directions to file submissions, did not engage with repeated communications from the registrar, and thus the application was abandoned and properly dismissed for non-prosecution.
29 Aug 2011

Kelly v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 237
Court

District Court

The application for leave to appeal was properly dismissed because the applicant, through his advocate, repeatedly failed to file required submissions despite multiple registrar directions and opportunities, establishing non-prosecution that justified dismissal.
16 May 2011

O'Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 147
Court

District Court

The application for leave to appeal was struck out for non-prosecution because the appellant repeatedly failed to file required submissions despite multiple extensions, communications and clear warnings that the application would be determined as it stood and could be struck out for want of prosecution.
12 May 2011

Reckin v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2011] NZACC 140
Court

District Court

The application for leave to appeal was struck out for non‑prosecution because the appellant failed to file submissions, repeatedly missed directions and deadlines, and the Court had afforded sufficient opportunity and latitude to progress the application.