FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Campbell v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2017] FCA 1509
File number: QUD 242 of 2017 Judge: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 12 December 2017 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – where applicant in receipt of invalidity pension benefit pursuant to Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme – whether respondent was obliged to furnish applicant with information about the annual pension amount of invalidity pension paid under that scheme – whether Tribunal erred in affirming, subject to correction of the reference to the applicable regulation, respondent’s decision to furnish that information in a certificate provided to the applicant – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt VIIIB, Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001, Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme) Determination 2004 (Cth)
FAMILY LAW – where applicant in receipt of invalidity pension benefit pursuant to Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme – whether respondent was obliged to furnish applicant with information about the annual pension amount of invalidity pension paid under that scheme – whether Tribunal erred in affirming, subject to correction of the reference to the applicable regulation, respondent’s decision to furnish that information in a certificate provided to the applicant – Family Law Act1975 (Cth), Pt VIIIB, Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001, Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme Determination 2004 (Cth)
Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 25D
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 13
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90MZB
Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 22, 40, 46
Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 reg 63
Cases cited: Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme v Edington [2011] FCAFC 8; (2011) 119 ALD 472
Campbell v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (2016) 155 ALD 66; [2016] FCA 808
Edwards v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2017] FCAFC 173
Esber v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 430
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shang Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Date of hearing: 9 November 2017 Registry: Queensland Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 37 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Katter with Mr J Ward Solicitor for the Applicant: Macpherson Kelley Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent filed a Submitting Notice, with a reservation in respect of costs Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr R Douglas QC with Mr R Schulte Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
QUD 242 of 2017 BETWEEN: BRADLEY CAMPBELL
Applicant
AND: SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent
COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION CORPORATION
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 DECEMBER 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LOGAN J:
This case is a sequel to an earlier, partially successful appeal by the present applicant, Mr Bradley Campbell, against a decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (Tribunal): Campbell v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (2016) 155 ALD 66; [2016] FCA 808 (earlier judgment). On that occasion,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Campbell v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal 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.
- Case
- [2017] FCA 1509
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the respondent had an obligation to provide the specific information requested by the applicant. It examined the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act, the regulations, and the determination, focusing on the scope of disclosure required under the Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme. The court concluded that the respondent was not legally bound to provide the information in the manner requested by the applicant, but the Tribunal's decision to affirm the provision of such information in a certificate was correct, subject to a correction in the reference to the applicable regulation.
The court found that the Tribunal did not err in its decision, as it had correctly identified the statutory framework and the obligations of the respondent. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed with a minor correction regarding the reference to the applicable regulation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as per Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.