Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Corrotea v Accident Compensation Corporation (ACAA, 03/10/07)

Judgment Text

DECISION ON THE PAPERS 
P J Cartwright
[1]
The issue in this appeal is a decision by the ACC (“the Corporation”) dated 22 May 1998 which declined the appellant's claim for attendant care compensation under s 80(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 (“the 1982 Act”). 
[2]
In a review decision which issued on 19 June 2001 the issue was whether ACC acted correctly in issuing its decision of 22 May 1998 by which it declined the appellant's claim for compensation in respect of constant personal attention pursuant to s 80(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 1982. The review decision of 19 June 2001 recommended that the Corporation confirm its decision of 22 May 1998 declining the appellant's claim for compensation in respect of constant personal attention under s 80(3) of the Act. It is against that decision that this appeal has been brought. 
[3]
From 2001 onwards this appeal has not been prosecuted with any degree of due diligence. There was desultory correspondence with a solicitor who was apparently acting for the appellant. However in July 2006 the solicitor advised that he was no longer acting for Mr Corrotea. 
[4]
At the time it was noted by the Authority that neither was the Notice of Appeal out of time and nor was any further evidence sought to be adduced in support of the appeal. 
[5]
In September 2006 the Authority issued directions within a generous time frame for the making of final submissions in the usual way, such submissions to be completed by way of exchange between the parties no later than 7 December 2006. 
[6]
By early March 2007 the file remained inactive because Mr Corrotea had done nothing further to prosecute his appeal. 
[7]
On 15 March 2007 the Authority made a further direction reversing the sequence of making final submissions. ACC was given first right to make a final submission. The appellant's response was to follow. ACC was given a final right of reply, to be exercised by 14 May 2007. 
[8]
ACC submissions of counsel for the respondent were duly received on 17 May 2007. 
[9]
During June 2007 file activity suggested that Messrs Andrew Cadenhead and/or Philip Schmidt might engage on behalf of the appellant. Unfortunately nothing of this nature materialised. 
[10]
Accordingly the Authority's decision will now issue. The appeal is dismissed for all of the reasons explained in the 17 pages of submissions of counsel for the respondent, a copy of which is attached to this decision. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents