Re: THE COMMISSIONER FOR SUPERANNUATION
And: CHERYL MAY BENHAM
No. ACT G68 of 1986
Administrative Law
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Neaves J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Appeal - Superannuation - Retirement on ground of invalidity before maximum retirement age - Pre-existing physical condition specified in benefit classification certificate - Subsequent physical condition causing, or substantially contributing to, incapacity resulting in early retirement - Whether "connected with" pre-existing condition.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s.44
Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth), s.66
HEARING
CANBERRA
#DATE 14:4:1988
Counsel for the applicant: Mr H.G. Shore
Solicitor for the applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the respondent: Mr K.G. Crispin
Solicitor for the respondent: Mr B. Collaery
ORDER
The appeal be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36
of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
This appeal, which is brought by the Commissioner for Superannuation ("the Commissioner") pursuant to s.44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), seeks an order setting aside a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") given on 17 September 1986. The issue before the Tribunal concerned the level of benefits to which the respondent, Cheryl May Benham, is entitled under the Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth) ("the Superannuation Act"). The respondent claims she is entitled to invalidity benefits in accordance with sub-s.66(1) of the Superannuation Act. The Commissioner asserts that her entitlement is to the reduced benefits provided by sub-s.66(2). The Tribunal upheld the respondent's claim.
Sub-section 66(1) of the Superannuation Act provides, subject to certain provisions which are not material for present purposes, that, except where sub-s.66(2) applies, a person who ceases to be an eligible employee by reason of retirement on the ground of invalidity before attaining maximum retiring age is entitled to certain benefits. Sub-section 66(2) provides for reduced benefits to be paid where -
"(a) a person ceases to be an eligible employee by reason of retirement on the ground of invalidity before attaining his maximum retiring age;
(b) there was in force in respect of the person, immediately before the person's retirement, a benefit classification certificate; and
(c) the Commissioner is of the opinion that the incapacity which was the ground for his retirement was caused, or was substantially contributed to, by a physical or mental condition or conditions specified in the certificate or by a physical or mental condition or conditions connected with such a condition or such conditions."
The issue of benefit classification certificates is provided for in s.16. The Commissioner may, for the purposes of that section, require a person who proposes to become or becomes an eligible employee, as defined in sub-s.3(1), to undergo such medical examination or examinations by an approved medical practitioner or practitioners as the Commissioner determines (sub-s.16(2)). A report or reports of the result or results of the medical examination or examinations is to be furnished…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Commissioner for Superannuation v Benham, C.M 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
- [1988] FCA 190
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to interpret the relevant legislative provisions to determine the connection between the pre-existing condition and the subsequent condition that led to Benham's retirement. The legal question at the heart of the case was whether the subsequent condition was a continuation or a separate condition, and if it was sufficiently connected to the pre-existing condition as required by the superannuation legislation.
The court considered the statutory language and the legislative intent behind the superannuation provisions. It held that the subsequent physical condition was not sufficiently connected to the pre-existing condition to warrant the classification of the retirement as being due to the pre-existing condition. The reasoning hinged on the interpretation of "connected with" and the need for a direct and substantial link between the pre-existing condition and the condition that led to the retirement. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish this connection, thereby dismissing the appeal. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36
of the Federal Court Rules.
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.