Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Residebri v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 04/10/11)

Judgment Text

DECISION OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE 
Judge M J Beattie
[1]
On 8 March 2008 the appellant, through his then solicitors, John Miller Law, lodged a Notice of Appeal from a review decision dated 29 February 2008. 
[2]
In February 2009 John Miller Law advised that they had withdrawn from acting for the appellant, and thereafter the Registry corresponded direct with the appellant at his home address. 
[3]
Despite a request no progress was made towards having this appeal set down for hearing, and therefore a Directions Hearing was scheduled for 1 April 2009. 
[4]
The appellant did not appear at that Directions Hearing and it was the case that formal notification was given to him that he was required to file submissions within 21 days of receipt of that notice, failing which the appeal would be likely to be dismissed. 
[5]
It was as a consequence of that letter that the Registry received notification from a Mr Clothier of Newtown Citizens Advice Bureau that he had been asked to represent the appellant. 
[6]
Despite further requests for the filing of submissions no progress was made. 
[7]
In July 2010, the Registry received advice from Mr D Vincent, Solicitor, that he had been requested to act for the appellant, and he advised that he was applying for legal aid. 
[8]
In a letter dated 15 November 2010 Mr Vincent advised that he was no longer acting for the appellant and that further communications should be with the appellant direct. 
[9]
Despite further requests to the appellant for the filing of submissions no such submissions have been received. 
[10]
On 8 June 2011, the Registry received a formal application from Counsel for the Respondent for an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. 
[11]
The appellant, having taken no positive step to have this appeal determined, I consider it is a clear case where this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution in accordance with the provisions of section 16193)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and this appeal is now formally dismissed pursuant to that provision. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents