Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Shepherd v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 04/08/08)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
This appeal was scheduled for hearing before me today for the purpose of the appellant reporting on progress in prosecuting this appeal and for the Court to make any Directions that might be seen to be necessary. 
[2]
The appeal in this matter was lodged with the Registry on 9 May 2005 arising from a Review Decision of 8 April 2005. 
[3]
The appellant initially had counsel representing her and at counsel's request further time was given for the purpose of obtaining additional information relating to the appeal and for the filing of submissions. 
[4]
In February 2008, the appellant's counsel advised that he had been unable to obtain instructions from the appellant and he was therefore withdrawing as counsel. 
[5]
Subsequent to that advice, the appellant was written to by the Registry with the request that she advise what progress was being made towards having this appeal achieve readiness for hearing. 
[6]
Despite subsequent letters from the Registry, no response has been received from the appellant, and accordingly the matter was scheduled for a Directions hearing on 4 June 2008 at the Christchurch District Court. 
[7]
There was no appearance of the appellant at that hearing on 4 June 2008, at which time the Court made a Direction requiring the appellant to file and serve her submissions within 28 days and she was to be advised that failure to file those submissions within the time directed was likely to lead to the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. 
[8]
No such submissions have been received by the Registry from the appellant, nor has it had any contact from her. 
[9]
The appellant did not appear today and therefore the Court can only conclude that the appellant is no longer interested in prosecuting this appeal. 
[10]
There having been a failure by the appellant to comply with the Directions Order of 4 June 2008 and Counsel for the Respondent having made an application for an order under Section 161(3) of the Act, I determine that there has been a failure by the appellant to prosecute this appeal. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Act. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents