Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

  • Breadcrumbs error
  • >Navigation services are temporarily unavailable. Please try again later.

Woolley v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 23/05/12)

Judgment Text

M J Beattie Judge
On 21 April 2008, the appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal with the District Court from a review decision dated 7 April 2008. 
Initially, the appellant was represented by Counsel, Mr J McCarthy, but in December 2008 Mr McCarthy advised the Registry that he was no longer acting for the appellant. 
Subsequent to Mr McCarthy's withdrawal the Registry had difficulty obtaining an address for the appellant, as Mr McCarthy unfortunately died as a result of an accident prior to giving advice of same to the Registry. 
Eventually the Registry obtained an email address for Mr Woolley and he was subsequently written to and requested to present his written submissions in support of the appeal. Despite repeated requests, no such submissions were forthcoming, and in fact there was no further contact with the Registry from the appellant regarding this appeal. 
In a letter dated 24 January 2012, the Registry advised Mr Woolley that his appeal was likely to be struck out for want of prosecution if he did not make contact and progress the appeal. 
On 30 April 2012, the Registry received a request from Counsel for the Respondent that this appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to section 161(3)(b) of the Act. 
It is the case that no response has been received from the appellant to that application and I consider that sufficient time has been given to this appellant to progress this appeal, and I find that his failure to do so is clearly a case of a failure to prosecute the appeal within a reasonable time. 
Accordingly therefore, I direct that this appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to section 161(3)(b) of the Act. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents