Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Accident Compensation Cases

Chambers v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 11/05/12)

Judgment Text

M J Beattie Judge
In May 2006 the appellant, through counsel, lodged an appeal to this Court from a Review Decision dated 9 May 2006. 
Despite two directions decisions in 2009 requiring the filing of submissions on behalf of the appellant, none were forthcoming, and it is the case that counsel who had been acting for the appellant obtained leave to withdraw on 14 May 2009. 
Subsequent to that circumstance, the appellant was requested on a number of occasions to file submissions and when they were not so filed a further directions order was made requiring the appellant to file submissions by the end of January 2010. 
It is the case that no submissions were filed, although the appellant did advise the Registry in August 2010 that he did have a terminal illness. 
In December 2011, the Registry wrote to the appellant requesting to be advised what his present situation was and to provide the Registry with an update of the appeal. 
It is the case that that letter from the Registry was returned to the Registry with a note stating that the appellant was now deceased. 
Subsequent to that advice the Registry received an application from Counsel for the Respondent requesting dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution in accordance with Section 161(3)(b) of the Act. 
It is clearly the case that this appeal is not going to proceed now that the appellant is deceased and as it was the case down to that situation arising that there had been a gross failure to prosecute the appeal, I consider that the necessary situation has been established whereby this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed pursuant to Section 161(3)(b) of the Act. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents