Skip to Content, Skip to Navigation
Advertisement

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters

Safeguard OSH Solutions - Thomson Reuters



Accident Compensation Cases

Meihana v Accident Compensation Corporation (DC, 05/09/13)

Judgment Text

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D A ONGLEY APPEAL DISMISSED UNDER s 161(3) 
Judge D A Ongley
[1]
This appeal was filed by the firm John Miller Law in April 2010. In September 2010, John Miller Law notified the Registry that it no longer acted for Mr Meihana. 
[2]
On 28 September 2010, Mr Meihana telephoned the Registry and advised that he would be seeking Legal Aid. He provided the Registry with a new address and the Registry wrote direct to him at 10 Puriri Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014, requesting written submissions in support of the appeal. After letters in August 2011 and in August 2012 requesting submissions, no reply was received from Mr Meihana. 
[3]
The Registry wrote to the appellant on 29 May 2013 at the same address, notifying the time and place for a directions conference on the morning of 10 June 2013 at the District Court. Mr Meihana did not appear at the directions conference. 
[4]
The respondent applied to have the appeal dismissed if the appellant failed to respond further. The Court has power under s 161(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to dismiss an appeal if an appellant does not prosecute the appeal with due diligence. 
[5]
At the hearing on 10 June 2013, I was satisfied that the appellant had not prosecuted the appeal with due diligence. A final opportunity was given to file submissions and the appellant was notified that failure to comply would result in the appeal being placed before a Judge to be dismissed without further notice. No response has been received. 
[6]
This appeal is now dismissed under the power in s 161(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to dismiss the appeal because the appellant has not prosecuted it with due diligence. 

From Accident Compensation Cases

Table of Contents