Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd - [2000] FCA 290

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd [2000] FCA 290
KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS & ANOR v AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED & ORS
AG93 of 1997
FINN J
8 MARCH 2000
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 93 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS and EMMA MARIA COLLINS by their next friend Gabriella Jean Piscioneri
APPLICANTS

AND:

AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED, the Trustee of the Maritime Officers Superannuation Fund and Justin Collins and Nicholas Collins
FIRST RESPONDENTS

JUSTIN COLLINS and NICHOLAS COLLINS
SECOND and THIRD RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. an extension of time in which to file and serve the Notice of Appeal be granted;
2.leave to amend the Notice of Appeal, so as to add denial of procedural fairness as a ground be granted;

3. 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

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

AG 93 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS and EMMA MARIA COLLINS by their next friend Gabriella Jean Piscioneri
APPLICANTS

AND:

AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED, the Trustee of the Maritime Officers Superannuation Fund and Justin Collins and Nicholas Collins
FIRST RESPONDENTS

JUSTIN COLLINS and NICHOLAS COLLINS
SECOND and THIRD RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

8 MARCH 2000

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application that should never have been brought. In form it is for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal ("the Tribunal") given on 27 October 1997 at Melbourne. The application itself is under s 46 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) ("the Act"). It has been initiated in the wrong registry: see O 53B r 1 of the Federal Court Rules ("the Rules"). Nonetheless the three respondents have not objected to that. Neither have they objected to treating the application as if it were a hearing of the appeal. It has been heard accordingly.
The application has been prosecuted by Gabriella Jean Piscioneri as next friend of Kimberley Ellen Collins and Emma Maria Collins. I emphasise that particular role. Though a party to this proceeding: see O 43 r 1 of the Rules; and on the position of a "next friend" see Eversley, Domestic Relations (6^th ed), 630ff; 13 Halsbury's Laws of Australia [205-1880]; Ms Piscioneri on a number of occasions in documentary material filed in this Court has described herself as their solicitor.
The dispute between the present parties has significant history involving prior proceedings before the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and a hearing in the Federal Court. This is set out in the reasons for judgment of Merkel J in Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 565 at 567-571. I need not recount it here.
A central question before his Honour in that case…

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 Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd

Details

AGLC: Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd [2000] FCA 290
Case: [2000] FCA 290
Decision Date: 8 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between a former employee and his superannuation fund manager. The applicant, Collins, sought an extension of time to file and serve his Notice of Appeal, as well as leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to include a denial of procedural fairness as a ground. The respondent, AMP Superannuation Ltd, opposed the application on the grounds that it was an abuse of process and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any error in the primary judge's decision. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether to grant the applicant's application.

The court was required to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension of time, as well as whether the proposed amendment to the Notice of Appeal was permissible. The court also had to consider whether the application was an abuse of process, and whether the respondent had suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal. The court had to weigh the competing considerations of ensuring a just and efficient outcome against the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension of time, and that the proposed amendment to the Notice of Appeal was not permissible. The court held that the application was an abuse of process, and that the respondent had suffered prejudice as a result of the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal. The court found that the application should be dismissed with costs. The court held that the applicant's failure to demonstrate sufficient grounds for an extension of time and the impermissibility of the proposed amendment to the Notice of Appeal were significant factors in its decision. The court also found that the respondent's prejudice as a result of the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal was a relevant consideration.

The court dismissed the application with costs. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension of time, and that the proposed amendment to the Notice of Appeal was not permissible. The court held that the application was an abuse of process, and that the respondent had suffered prejudice as a result of the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal. The court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. an extension of time in which to file and serve the Notice of Appeal be granted;

2. leave to amend the Notice of Appeal, so as to add denial of procedural fairness as a ground be granted;

3. the application be dismissed with costs.

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

FINN J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.

BETWEEN:	KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS and EMMA MARIA COLLINS by their next friend Gabriella Jean Piscioneri APPLICANTS
AND:	AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED, the Trustee of the Maritime Officers Superannuation Fund and Justin Collins and Nicholas Collins FIRST RESPONDENTS JUSTIN COLLINS and NICHOLAS COLLINS SECOND and THIRD RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 MARCH 2000
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	AG 93 OF 1997

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	8 MARCH 2000
PLACE:	CANBERRA