Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Neville v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 30/03/05)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
In March 2004 the appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal with this Court in respect of a review decision given on 20 February 2004. 
[2]
That review decision was to the effect that there was no jurisdiction to hear reviews of three decisions sought to be reviewed as the applications for review were lodged outside the statutory time limit and the Reviewer found that there were no extenuating circumstances relating to the appellant's ability to meet the time limit as required by Section 135(3) of the Act. 
[3]
At the time the appellant lodged that Notice of Appeal he was represented by John Miller Law. That firm advised the Registry on 2 September 2004 that it was withdrawing from acting for the appellant and that further correspondence was to be directed to the appellant himself. 
[4]
The Registry has had correspondence with the appellant on a number of occasions for the purpose of progressing the hearing of this appeal and a Directions Hearing was called for 24 January 2005. 
[5]
The appellant did not appear at that Directions Hearing but the respondent was represented by Counsel and Directions were made at that time. 
[6]
Details of the Directions made were mailed to the appellant at his last known address by registered post but that mail has been returned as it was unclaimed. 
[7]
One of the Directions made by the Court on 24 January 2005 was that in the event that the appellant took no step in this appeal then the file was to be referred to a Judge to consider the application, made that day by the respondent, for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Act. 
[8]
The appellant has taken no step to prosecute his appeal, has not informed the Registry of any change in address and has had no contact with the Registry for some considerable time regarding his appeal. In those circumstances I make an order that this appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Act. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents