Industrial Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bigg v SAS Trustee Corporation [2016] NSWIC 2 Hearing dates: 9 December 2015 Date of orders: 15 February 2016 Decision date: 15 February 2016 Before: Schmidt J Decision: (1) Mr Bigg’s summons is dismissed.
(2) Unless the parties approach to be heard on costs within 14 days, Mr Bigg is to bear the Corporation’s costs, as agreed or assessed.Catchwords: SUPERANNUATION – appeal – appeal from a SAS Trustee Corporation decision – former police officer – whether applicant was eligible to apply for a certificate of incapacity under s 10B(2) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – construction of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – whether the legislature intended to provide unjustly dismissed officers whose reinstatement was not ordered by the Commission the rights it there granted those who retired or resigned – summons dismissed – orders made Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW)
Insurance (Amendment) Act 1983 (NSW)
Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW)
Police Act 1900 (NSW)
Police Legislation Further Amendment Act 1996 (NSW)
Police Service Amendment Act 1995 (NSW)
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)Cases Cited: Bigg v The New South Wales Police Service [1997] NSWIRComm 34; (1997) 72 IR 330
Bigg v New South Wales Police Service [1998] NSWIRComm 160; (1998) 30 IR 434
Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) [1913] HCA 60; (1913) 17 CLR 370
Carr v Western Australia [2007] HCA 47; (2007) 232 CLR 138
Commissioner of Police v SAS Trustee Corporation [2002] NSWIRComm 31; (2002) 131 IR 243
Commonwealth v Verwayen [1990] HCA 39; (1990) 170 CLR 394
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Khoury v Government Insurance Office of (NSW) [1984] HCA 55; (1984) 165 CLR 622
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Szizo [2009] HCA 37; (2009) 238 CLR 627
Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34; (2011) 245 CLR 1
Robinson v Commissioner for Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWIRComm 1027
SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard [2014] NSWCA 75; (2014) 86 NSWLR 367
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476
Police Association of New South Wales v The New South Wales Police Service [1998] NSWIRComm 160
Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
Weinstock v Beck [2013] HCA 14; (2013) 251 CLR 396Category: Principal judgment Parties: Malcolm Lorne Bigg (Applicant)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr T Ower (Respondent)
Mr M Bigg, unrepresented (Applicant)
SAS Trustee Corporation
File Number(s): IRC 467 of 2015 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
-
Mr Bigg, a former police officer, appeals a decision of the State Super SAS Trustee Corporation given on 6 May 2015 under the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW).
-
Mr Bigg became a contributor to the Police Superannuation Scheme in 1985. He…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bigg v SAS Trustee Corporation and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2016] NSWIC 2
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The summons was brought by Mr Bigg against the SAS Trustee Corporation seeking to overturn a decision that he was not eligible to apply for a certificate of incapacity under section 10B(2) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW). Mr Bigg, a former police officer, was dismissed from his position and was contending that he should be eligible for a certificate of incapacity in order to access his superannuation benefits. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant was eligible to apply for the certificate of incapacity under the given statute and whether the legislature intended to provide unjustly dismissed officers with the rights granted to those who retired or resigned.
The court identified that the primary issue was the interpretation of the statute and whether the legislature intended to provide unjustly dismissed officers with the rights it granted to those who retired or resigned. The court also had to determine if the applicant's dismissal was unjust and whether this was a factor that should influence the eligibility for the certificate of incapacity. The court considered the plain meaning of the relevant statutory provisions and the context in which they were enacted.
The court held that the relevant statutory provisions did not provide unjustly dismissed officers with the rights granted to those who retired or resigned. The court concluded that the applicant’s dismissal was not unjust and therefore, he was not eligible to apply for a certificate of incapacity. The court found that the plain meaning of the statute did not support the applicant’s interpretation and the context of the legislation did not indicate an intention to provide such rights to unjustly dismissed officers. The court dismissed the summons and ordered that unless the parties approached the court to be heard on costs within 14 days, the applicant was to bear the Corporation’s costs, as agreed or assessed.
The court identified that the primary issue was the interpretation of the statute and whether the legislature intended to provide unjustly dismissed officers with the rights it granted to those who retired or resigned. The court also had to determine if the applicant's dismissal was unjust and whether this was a factor that should influence the eligibility for the certificate of incapacity. The court considered the plain meaning of the relevant statutory provisions and the context in which they were enacted.
The court held that the relevant statutory provisions did not provide unjustly dismissed officers with the rights granted to those who retired or resigned. The court concluded that the applicant’s dismissal was not unjust and therefore, he was not eligible to apply for a certificate of incapacity. The court found that the plain meaning of the statute did not support the applicant’s interpretation and the context of the legislation did not indicate an intention to provide such rights to unjustly dismissed officers. The court dismissed the summons and ordered that unless the parties approached the court to be heard on costs within 14 days, the applicant was to bear the Corporation’s costs, as agreed or assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Mr Bigg’s summons is dismissed.
(2) Unless the parties approach to be heard on costs within 14 days, Mr Bigg is to bear the Corporation’s costs, as agreed or assessed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.