Legal Research
Cases
Dargan v United Super Pty Ltd

Dargan v United Super Pty Ltd

Case [2011] NSWSC 1316 1 November 2011

Unjust Enrichment

Policy Interpretation

Cover

Insurance Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dargan v United Super Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1316
Hearing dates: 24, 25 October 2011
Decision date: 01 November 2011
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Gzell J
Decision:
Insured was not at relevant time reasonably fitted by education or training to be a taxi driver.

Catchwords: SUPERANNUATION - Review of decisions, and related matters - work for which the insured is "reasonably fitted" by education, training or experience - whether different from "reasonably suited" or "reasonably qualified" - insured working as self-employed part-time taxi driver - must pass a Road Transport Training Course - insured had not done so at relevant time - whether education or training
Legislation Cited: Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)
Vehicle and Traffic (Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration) Regulations 2000 (Tas)
Cases Cited: Duncan v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (1999) 10 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-433
Kylie Rebecca Druery v First State Super Fss Trustee Corporation [2005] NSWIRCComm 255
McArthur v Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Company Ltd (2001) 11 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-501
Edwards v The Hunter Valley Co-op Dairy Co Ltd & Anor (1992) 7 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-113
De Britt v Frew (1992) 7 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-140
Giles & Giles v The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited (1986) 4 ANZ Insurance Cases 60-751
Riley v The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited & Anor (1986) 4 ANZ Insurance Cases 60-684
Fernance v Wreckair Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) (1992) 43 IR 300
Halloran v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] NSWSC 913
McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Limited [2000] HCA 65; (2000) 203 CLR 579
International Air Transport Association v Ansett Australia Holdings Limited [2008] HCA 3, (2008) 234 CLR 151
Chammas v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd (1993) 7 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-175
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited v Sayseng (2005) 13 ANZ Insurance Cases 90-123
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Anthony Dargan (Plaintiff)
United Super Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel
Matthew Gollan (Plaintiff)
Richard Horsley (Defendants)
Solicitors
Firth - The Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Turks Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2010/259186

Judgment

Introduction

John Anthony Dargan, the plaintiff, claims superannuation entitlements for becoming totally and permanently disabled on 5 July 2007 when he fell and injured his back. United Super Pty Ltd, the first defendant, was the trustee of the superannuation fund, Construction and Building Unions Superannuation Fund (Cbus). Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited, the second defendant, insured the fund with respect to obligations to pay total and permanent disablement benefits.

The trust deed provided that where any benefit payable in the event of total and permanent disablement was an insured benefit, the term "totally and permanently disabled" should have the meaning ascribed to it in the relevant policy.

It was common ground that the definition of "total and permanent disablement" in cl 1.3.1 of the group life policy issued by Hannover Life was the applicable…

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 Dargan v United Super Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Dargan v United Super Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1316
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1316
Decision Date: 01 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dargan v United Super Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to interpret the meaning of the phrase "reasonably fitted" by education, training or experience in the context of superannuation. The case involved a dispute over whether the plaintiff, who worked as a part-time, self-employed taxi driver, was reasonably fitted by education, training or experience for the work he was doing. The primary issue before the court was to determine whether the phrase "reasonably fitted" should be interpreted differently from "reasonably suited" or "reasonably qualified".

The court considered the legislative framework and relevant case law to discern the meaning of the phrase "reasonably fitted". The court concluded that the phrase "reasonably fitted" should not be interpreted differently from "reasonably suited" or "reasonably qualified". The court found that the plaintiff, who was working as a part-time, self-employed taxi driver, was not reasonably fitted by education, training or experience for the work he was doing, as he had not passed the Road Transport Training Course required for taxi drivers at the relevant time. The court held that the plaintiff's lack of the necessary training course rendered him not reasonably fitted by education, training or experience for his work.

The court's reasoning was based on the legislative framework and relevant case law. The court held that the phrase "reasonably fitted" should be interpreted in the same way as "reasonably suited" or "reasonably qualified". The court found that the plaintiff was not reasonably fitted by education, training or experience for his work as a part-time, self-employed taxi driver, as he had not passed the Road Transport Training Course required for taxi drivers at the relevant time. The court held that the plaintiff's lack of the necessary training course rendered him not reasonably fitted by education, training or experience for his work. The court's decision was that the plaintiff was not entitled to the superannuation benefits in dispute.

Orders