Cocks, D.H. v Commissioner for Superannuation - [1990] FCA 429

JUDGMENT NO ........ ..,....... 42 9 y 90 ..- . ,

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

) No. ~ 5 7 6 of 1989
)
GENERAL DIVISION )

On appeal from the
General Division of the
Admlnlstratlve Appeal5 Trlbunal
BETWEEN: DAPHNE HELENE COCKS

~ppli cant

AND : COMMISSIONER FOR
-
SUPERANNUATION
Respondent

corn: Davies J.
DATE : 17 August 1990
PLACE: Sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

superannuation benefits.

This is an appeal from a decision of the

Administrative Appeals Trlbunal, delivered 25 July 1989, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Conmissloner for Superannuatlon. The issue considered by the Tribunal was the proper content of a beneflt classification certificate and its effect on Mrs Cocks' entitlement to

9 9&

JUDGMENT NO. ..42 ..... :/ ......-.-

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal - superannuation - retirement on the ground of invalidity - delegate of Commissioner for Superannuation

issued benefit classification certificate under s.184(2) Superannation Act 1976 (Cth) -'alleged previous benefit classlfication certificate - effect of certificate on

entitlement to superannuation benefits - difference between

medical condition and incapacity.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Appeal from Administrative Appeals
Tribunal - whether breach of natural justice - whether

Tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) - s.37

Superannuation Act 1922 (Cth) - 5.5'
Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth) - ss.66, 184

Telecommunications Act 1975 (Cth) - s.56

DAPHNE HELENE COCKS

G 576 of 1989

Davies J.

17 August 1990

Sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

) No. G576 of 1989
)
GENERAL DIVISION )

eal from the

==e Genera Division of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
BETWEEN'

I- DAPHNE HELENE COCKS
Applicant

AND : COMMISSIONER FOR
SUPERANNUATION

Respondent

CORAM : Davies J.
DATE : 17 August 1990
PLACE : Sydney

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed with costs.

NOTE : Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

) NO. G576 of 1989
)
GENERAL DIVISION )

eal from the

- = ?d i - Genera Division of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
BETWEEN: DAPHNE HELENE COCKS
Applicant

AND : COMMISSIONER FOR
SUPERANNUATION
Respondent

CORM : Davies J.

DATE : 17 August 1990

PLACE: Sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from a decision of the

Administrative Appeals Tribunal, delivered 25 July 1989, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Commissioner for Superannuation. The issue considered by the Tribunal was the proper content of a benefit classification certificate and its effect on Mrs Cocks' entitlement to superannuation benefits.

Relevant provisions of the Superannuation Act 1976

(Cth) ("the Act") provide as follows:-

(2) Subject to sub-sections ( 3 ) , (3A) and (4)
of this section and section 79, where -

(a) a person ceases to be an eligible
employee by reason of retirement on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cocks, D.H. v Commissioner for Superannuation 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1990] FCA 429
Decision Date: 17 Aug 1990

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Commissioner for Superannuation. The central issue in this case is the proper content of a benefit classification certificate and its effect on Mrs Cocks' entitlement to superannuation benefits. The appeal was heard by Davies J in the Federal Court of Australia on 17 August 1990. The main legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the benefit classification certificate was validly issued and if the Tribunal had correctly applied the provisions of the Superannuation Act. The court found that the Tribunal did not err in its decision and that the benefit classification certificate was validly issued. The court also found that the Tribunal correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Superannuation Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In its reasoning, the court addressed several arguments made by the appellant, including the alleged invalidity of the benefit classification certificate, the distinction between medical conditions and incapacity, and the relevance of the anxiety state in determining Mrs Cocks' incapacity. The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its decision and that the certificate was validly issued. The court also found that the Tribunal correctly considered the relevant provisions of the Superannuation Act and that the anxiety state was a relevant factor in determining Mrs Cocks' incapacity.

The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, as all the grounds of challenge argued by the appellant failed. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and based on the evidence presented during the hearing. The court also found that the Tribunal had not breached the principles of natural justice in its consideration of the case.

Orders