Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Strong v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 30/01/02)

Judgment Text

RULING OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
The appellant in this appeal lodged a Notice of Appeal in this Court on 2 May 2000, that Notice of Appeal relating to a decision of a Reviewer dated 8 March 2000. At the time of the lodging of that Notice of Appeal the appellant was represented by Counsel, Mr G Bailey of Evans Bailey, Solicitors. 
[2]
The appeal was scheduled for hearing at Huntly on 17 October 2000 and on that date Mr Bailey appeared for the appellant and Mr Sherriff represented the respondent. Mr Bailey advised the Court that he was having difficulty in obtaining instructions from his client and that in any event he was seeking the opportunity of obtaining further medical reports and for this reason he sought an adjournment. That adjournment was duly granted. 
[3]
After considerable follow-up correspondence from the Registrar requesting advice as to when the appeal would be ready for hearing, Mr Bailey replied on 23 March 2001 stating that he had written to his client on a number of occasions but had had no response from her nor had he been able to contact her by telephone. 
[4]
From then on the Registrar sought to correspond directly with the appellant at her last known address, the tenor of that correspondence requesting to be advised as to whether she wished to pursue the appeal. 
[5]
The letters were not returned but neither in the event were they replied to. On 1 November 2001 the respondent scheduled the matter for hearing on Tuesday, 27 November 2001, and advised the appellant accordingly. 
[6]
There was no appearance of the appellant when the matter was called before me on 27 November 2001 and I indicated to Ms O'Donoghue, who was Counsel representing the respondent, that this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Subsequent to that date of hearing there has been no contact from the appellant and therefore pursuant to Rule 482 of the District Court Rules 1992 this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents