Legal Research
Cases
Chapman v United Super Pty Ltd

Chapman v United Super Pty Ltd

Case [2013] NSWSC 592 22 May 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chapman v United Super Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 592
Hearing dates: 04/03/2013
Decision date: 22 May 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Young AJ
Decision:
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: INSURANCE - contract - interpretation - Total and Permanent Disablement - whether plaintiff reasonably fitted by education, training or experience to carry out work
TRUSTS - discretionary trusts - duties of trustees - principles to be applied
Cases Cited: Alcoa of Australia Retirement Plan Pty Ltd v Frost [2012] VSCA 238
Fernance v Wreckair Pty Ltd (No 2) (1992) 43 IR 300
Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 36
Gilberg v Stevedoring Employees Retirement Fund Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1318
Halloran v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 913
Hannover Life Re of Australasia v Dargan [2013] NSWCA 57
Hannover Life Re Australasia Ltd v Sayseng [2005] NSWCA 214
Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161
Manglicmot v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 204
Petersen v Union des Assurances de Paris IARD (1995) 8 ANZ Ins Cas 61-244
Rapa v Patience (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland J, 4 April 1985)
Regina Fur Co Ltd v Bossom [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep 425
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 583
Telstra Super Pty Ltd v Flegeltaub [2000] VSCA 180
Tonkin v Western Mining Corp Ltd [1998] WASCA 101
Vidovic v Email Superannuation Pty Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Bryson J, 23 February 1995)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Scott Terrence Chapman (Plaintiff)
United Super Pty Ltd t/as CBUS Superannuation Fund (First Defendant)
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
CJS Purdy (Plaintiff)
MBJ Lee SC / EB Cowpe (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Cox West Lawyers (Plaintiff)
William Roberts Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2012/39816

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff sues on the basis that he is totally and permanently disabled and is entitled to benefits on that basis from the first defendant, the trustee of his Superannuation Fund ("the first defendant" or "the Trustee") who was insured against that risk by the second defendant, Hannover Light Re Office Australasia Ltd ("the Insurer").

The plaintiff was born on 24 December 1968. On 18 November 2006, he claims that he suffered back problems as a result of work done at Muswellbrook whilst installing a sprinkler system at a shopping centre. At the time, and indeed at all relevant times, he was employed by Firewise (Aust) Pty Ltd as a sprinkler fitter. He continued working.

On 6 February 2007, the plaintiff was working at a building site in Canberra. He said he was required to pick up a screwing machine weighing approximately 50 to 60 kilograms from a transportation box onto the corner of the box. Whilst lifting the machine and twisting he suffered significant pain in his lower back. He says he continued going to work but although he went to work he did not do any work and just followed the foreman about…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chapman v United Super Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Chapman v United Super Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 592
Case: [2013] NSWSC 592
Decision Date: 22 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chapman v United Super Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought a declaration that she was totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of a policy of income protection insurance issued by the defendant. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with interpreting the policy to determine whether the plaintiff was eligible for benefits due to her claimed disability. The dispute centred around the definition of "Total and Permanent Disablement" as outlined in the insurance policy, and whether the plaintiff was reasonably fitted by education, training or experience to carry out work as a result of her disability.

The central legal issue was the interpretation of the term "Total and Permanent Disablement" as it appeared in the insurance policy. The court needed to consider whether the plaintiff's inability to work was due to a physical or mental incapacity, and whether she was reasonably fitted by education, training or experience to carry out work. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles governing discretionary trusts and the duties of trustees in the context of the policy.

The court held that the term "Total and Permanent Disablement" should be interpreted in its ordinary and natural meaning. The court found that the plaintiff's inability to work was due to a combination of physical and mental incapacity, and that she was not reasonably fitted by education, training or experience to carry out work. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the evidence, including expert medical opinions, in determining the plaintiff's disability. The court also considered the principles governing discretionary trusts and the duties of trustees in the context of the policy, and found that the trustees had acted within their powers in determining the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits.

The court ultimately found in favour of the defendant, United Super Pty Ltd, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for a declaration that she was totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the insurance policy. The court's decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the language of insurance policies and the evidence presented in determining eligibility for benefits.

Orders