Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Cade v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 28/07/09)

Judgment Text

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT DECISION OF JUDGE J. CADENHEAD 
Judge J. Cadenhead
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of Judge D A Ongley, dated 19 February 2007. A short letter was written by Mr D V (Mike) Dixon-McIvor dated 14 March 2007 seeking confirmation that an email forwarded to the Registry met the requirements of the District Court and signified the appellant's intention to appeal the decision of Judge Ongley to the High Court. A letter dated 16 March 2007 from the Registry to Mr Dixon-McIvor acknowledged receipt of the email dated 9 March 2007, and stated that same would be treated as an application for leave to appeal to the High Court. In that letter from the Registry it was pointed out that it would be necessary to provide a statement stating where the District Court was wrong in its decision. It was pointed out that submissions would be required to be filed. 
[2]
The Registry wrote on 12 June 2007 advising that it had not received submissions in support of the application. Further letters were written on 10 July 2007, 2 August 2007 and 7 August 2007, 4 October 2007 and 29 November 2007. 
[3]
A reply was received from Mr Dixon-McIvor dated 19 December 2007, being an email, where he states that he has had health problems. He sought a further indulgence until the 4 March 2007. 
[4]
The Registry again wrote on 17 March 2008 seeking submissions within a time limit of 21 days. Further letters were again written on 9 April 2008 and 6 May 2008. On 19 June 2009 a letter was written indicating that if submissions were not given within 28 days, an appeal application would be put in front of a Judge for determination as it stood. On 22 July 2009 the appeal application has been put before myself. No replies have been received apart from the email letter from the appellant's advocate. 
[5]
I have read the decision of Judge Ongley, which is a comprehensive decision dealing with vocational independence. I can see no legal points that would arise on that decision which should be referred to the High Court on a point of law. Accordingly, I dismiss this application for leave to appeal to the High Court, as I can see no grounds to support it. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents