Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Accident Compensation Cases

Brady v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 27/02/13)

Judgment Text

Roderick Joyce QC Judge
On 18 January 2010 the Registry received from Ms Brady a notice of appeal against a review decision that had been made on the 8th of that month. 
Subsequently (and I now come forward to the middle of 2011) a document was received from her with a bullet point chronology of events. And it appears that, either with it or at other points in the journey of her case, there have been lodged various pieces of information including medical reports. 
But beyond that the position obviously is that submissions in support of the appeal have not been lodged. 
Around the middle of 2011 (specifically on 5 July that year) the Registry sought to assist her in completing the task by sending her some useful information as to what was required. 
That notwithstanding, submissions did not come to hand and so a reminder that that was the position was sent on 3 April 2012; that to the only address that ever seems to have been available to the Registry of 16 Catton Crescent, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041. 
There seems to have been some internal problems over proof or otherwise of delivery of that communication. But suffice it to say that courier advice received by the Corporation on 15 May 2012 was that Ms Brady was no longer at that address. The Corporation had then confirmed that was the only address it had, and Ms Bergin cannot add anything further of utility here this morning. 
That brings me to what happened this morning in Wellington which was that the Registry received back from NZ Courier Post the notification of today's hearing in terms that cards had been left at the address requesting Ms Brady to pick up the delivery, but nothing had eventuated. It is obvious, then, that Ms Brady has not been at the Catton Crescent, Mount Roskill address for some considerable time. 
It is equally obvious that no steps have been taken by her to ensure that she was open to receipt of communications from the Registry concerning her appeal. And, fundamentally, there is no sign at all that (despite the useful information sent her in July 2011, there has been any effort on her part to pursue the appeal. 
In that state of affairs I invoke the power available to me under Rule 14.24 of the District Courts Rules 2009 in terms that I hold that Ms Brady has not prosecuted her appeal with due diligence and that on that account her appeal should be dismissed, which it is. 
That dismissal 1 add, relates to what in fact are two appeals AI 48/10 and ACR 443/10. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents