Daley v SAS Trustee Corporation

The appeal concerned a dispute between Mr Daley and the SAS Trustee Corporation (STC) regarding the commencement date for an additional amount of annual superannuation allowance. Mr Daley had applied to the District Court of New South Wales for a determination concerning STC's decision that the additional amount was payable only from the date STC received his application, rather than an earlier date. The primary judge had determined that Mr Daley was not an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of s 21(1) of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW), thereby finding the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Daley was not a "person aggrieved" by STC's decision for the purposes of s 21(1) of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW). This involved construing the meaning of "person aggrieved" and "decision" in that section, and considering whether the District Court's jurisdiction under s 21(1) was dependent on the judge being satisfied that the appellant was an aggrieved person. The court also considered the application of s 142N of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) regarding appeals on a point of law.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had erred in his construction of s 21(1). The court reasoned that STC's determination of the commencement date for the additional superannuation allowance constituted a "decision" within the meaning of s 21(1), and that Mr Daley was a "person aggrieved" by that decision because it affected his entitlement to a payment. The court found that the primary judge had incorrectly applied a test that required the appellant to demonstrate that the decision was wrong on its merits, rather than simply that he was directly affected by it. The court emphasised that the jurisdiction conferred by s 21(1) was facultative and that the primary judge should have proceeded to determine the real merits and justice of the case.

The appeal was allowed with costs, and the orders made by the primary judge were set aside. The matter was remitted to the District Court in its residual jurisdiction for determination of the appropriate date from which the additional superannuation payment should take effect, with the finding that Mr Daley was relevantly incapacitated for the payment of the additional amount undisturbed.