Gibson v Dental Disciplinary Tribunal HC Auckland CIV 2003-4004-9

The applicant, Neville James Gibson, sought to set aside or review the decision of Robertson J to dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution against a decision of the Dental Disciplinary Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution after the applicant failed to appear at hearings on 15 and 22 July 2004. The key issues were whether the applicant's application for review was out of time, whether he had notice of the hearings, and whether the judge was correct in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Court determined that the application was not out of time as strict compliance with Rule 259(3) was not necessary given the conflicting evidence regarding notice. The Court found that the applicant had notice of the hearings through his counsel, Graham Jenkins, who had received the relevant notices. The Court concluded that any confusion regarding the change of solicitors did not excuse the applicant's failure to attend the hearings.

In dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, the Court found that the delay was both inexcusable and inordinate, amounting to 18 months without any steps taken by the applicant. The Court also found that the delay was seriously prejudicial to the respondent, particularly due to the passage of time since the events in question and the applicant's intention to introduce new evidence. Finally, the Court determined that it was not in the overall interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed.

The Court declined the applicant's application to set aside the decision of Robertson J, and the respondent was entitled to costs on this application.