Buck and Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation

This matter concerned an application by Ms Buck for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Commissioner of Superannuation. The dispute centred on whether Ms Buck qualified as a "spouse" under the *Superannuation Act 1976* and was therefore eligible for benefits. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine if there was an acceptable explanation for the delay in lodging the application and if there were reasonable prospects of success.

The legal issues before the AAT were whether Ms Buck met the definition of a "spouse" for the purposes of the *Superannuation Act 1976*, and if so, whether she had provided an acceptable explanation for the significant delay in seeking a review of the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal also had to assess whether, if an extension were granted, Ms Buck had demonstrated prospects of success in her substantive application.

The Tribunal considered the evidence of Ms Buck's marriage and subsequent Family Court orders, which indicated a history of domestic violence and financial dependence. While acknowledging the severity of the abuse, the Tribunal noted that the *Superannuation Act* and general trust law principles did not impose a duty on the Commissioner to proactively inform potential beneficiaries of their rights, particularly when an application had been refused. The Tribunal distinguished the duty owed by trustees in this context from situations where a more intense duty might arise, such as in *Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd*. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that there was no acceptable explanation for the delay and that Ms Buck had not demonstrated sufficient prospects of success.

The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision and dismissed Ms Buck's application for an extension of time.