Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Accident Compensation Cases

de Hart v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 07/12/07)

Judgment Text

Judge M J Beattie
This appeal was scheduled for hearing before me on 19 November 2007 at 11.45 a.m. At that appointed time there was no appearance of the appellant or anyone representing him. 
A review of the appeal file discloses that the notice of appeal was lodged by the appellant on 3 October 2003, and over the ensuing four years the Registry has endeavoured to have the appellant file submissions in accordance with the Practice Note but despite numerous requests he has failed to do so. 
The notice to the appellant advising him of the hearing of this appeal included advice that in the event that the Court were to consider the appeal was not being prosecuted with due diligence, it could dismiss the appeal. The Registry file notes that it has received no communication from the appellant since the forwarding of that notice of hearing. 
At the hearing before me on 19 November 2007, Mr Hlavac, Counsel for the Respondent, made an application that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. I am satisfied that such grounds for dismissal have been made out. 
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Act. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents