Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Moore v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 23/03/09)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
This appeal came on for hearing before me on 11 March 2009, the purpose of which was to issue Directions for the future prosecution of this appeal as the appellant had taken no step hitherto in that regard. 
[2]
The Court had previously issued a Direction to the appellant following a Directions Hearing on 18 November 2008. It was a requirement in that Direction that the appellant file and serve his submissions in support of his appeal within 28 days of the receipt of the Notice. The Direction went on to advise that if the appellant failed to comply with that requirement it was likely to lead to the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. 
[3]
When the matter was called before me on 11 March 2009, there was no appearance for the appellant and no explanation for his non-appearance. Mr H Evans represented the respondent at that time. 
[4]
The appellant had not complied with the Direction previously made by the Court on 18 November 2008 and Mr Evans made a formal application for the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. 
[5]
The appellant having taken no positive step to prosecute his appeal since notice of same was filed on 19 May 2008, and he having failed to comply with the Direction of the Court issued on 18 November 2008, and there being no appearance of him or on his behalf at the hearing on 11 March 2009, I consider that the grounds for dismissal as contained in s 161(3)(a) and (b) of the Act have been made out, and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents