Day v SAS Trustee Corporation - [2020] NSWDC 381

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2020] NSWDC 381
Hearing dates: 6-9 July 2020
Date of orders: 14 July 2020
Decision date: 14 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Confirm the decision of the SASTC by its delegate, PSAC.

Catchwords:
POLICE SUPERANNUATION
Whether P suffering from the infirmity claimed (chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive mood) “at the time of the member’s resignation” within the meaning of s10B(2)(b) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906. P a member of NSW Police from 30 June 1980 until his resignation effective on 26 September 1998. P qualified as a police prosecutor in 1984 and at the time of his resignation was a sergeant/police prosecutor. P last worked in NSW Police immediately prior to 21 August 1998, when he was certified unfit due to “acute anxiety and depressive reaction”. P submitted his resignation on 4 September 1998. In November 1998 P commenced working as a solicitor with the Aboriginal Legal Service in Taree. In May 2000 he was promoted to Solicitor Advocate/Office Manager at Newcastle. On 23 July 2001 he became a Local Court Magistrate but resigned his commission on 27 July 2002, after a short, unhappy career on the Bench. Since 2003, P has been working as a solicitor in various practices, specialising in criminal law. Court was not satisfied that P was disabled for work as a police prosecutor after the end of 1998.
Held: the term “at the time of the member’s resignation” does not mean on his last day of service or the day after that. The words must be construed in the context of a superannuation scheme. Semble, the decision maker must be satisfied both at the time of certification and at the time of resignation that the member of the scheme was suffering from the infirmity of mind (or body) alleged. The infirmity must be indefinite at the time of resignation, not temporary or transient, Dicta of IRC in Court Session adopted.

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995
Judicial Officers Act 1986
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906

Cases Cited:
Johnson v SAS Trustee Corporation [2019] NSWDC 925
SASTC v Daykin [2002] NSWIRComm 124
SASTC v Hazlewood [2009] NSWIRComm 157
SASTC v Rossetti [2018] NSWCA 68
Woollard v SASTC [2012] NSWIRComm 51

Texts Cited:
Publius Terentius Afer, Phormio, 161BC

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Roland Scott Day (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:
Plaintiff:
Counsel - P. Morris S.C. & M. Hammond
Solicitor - S. Gray (Cardillo Gray Partners)
Defendant:
Counsel - T. Ower
Solicitor - L. Doyle (SASTC)

File Number(s): RJ00142/19
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Roland Scott Day, is a former sergeant of police. He was attested as a probationary constable of police on 30 June 1980, and there upon became a contributor to the Police Superannuation Fund established by the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (“the Act”). On 26 August 1998, the plaintiff…

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 Day v SAS Trustee Corporation 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: [2020] NSWDC 381
Decision Date: 14 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Day v SAS Trustee Corporation, the court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff, Day, was suffering from the infirmity claimed at the time of his resignation from the New South Wales Police Force. The specific infirmity in question was chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive mood. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the phrase "at the time of the member's resignation" as it appears in section 10B(2)(b) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906. The court needed to decide whether this phrase should be understood as referring to the moment of resignation or the period immediately preceding it, and whether the infirmity must be indefinite or could be temporary. The court considered the broader context of the superannuation scheme and the intent behind the legislation.

The court found that the phrase "at the time of the member’s resignation" should not be narrowly construed to mean only on the day of resignation or the day after. Instead, it should be interpreted in the context of the superannuation scheme, taking into account the member's condition both at the time of certification and the time of resignation. The court adopted the interpretation that the infirmity must be indefinite at the time of resignation and not merely temporary or transient. This decision was based on the broader principles of superannuation legislation and the need to ensure fair treatment of scheme members.

The court confirmed the decision of the SASTC by its delegate, PSAC, and dismissed Day’s application. The ruling underscored the importance of considering the context and intent of superannuation legislation when interpreting such provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Confirm the decision of the SASTC by its delegate, PSAC.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2020] NSWDC 381
Hearing dates:	6-9 July 2020
Date of orders:	14 July 2020
Decision date:	14 July 2020
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Confirm the decision of the SASTC by its delegate, PSAC.
Catchwords:	POLICE SUPERANNUATION Whether P suffering from the infirmity claimed (chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive mood) “at the time of the member’s resignation” within the meaning of s10B(2)(b) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906. P a member of NSW Police from 30 June 1980 until his resignation effective on 26 September 1998. P qualified as a police prosecutor in 1984 and at the time of his resignation was a sergeant/police prosecutor. P last worked in NSW Police immediately prior to 21 August 1998, when he was certified unfit due to “acute anxiety and depressive reaction”. P submitted his resignation on 4 September 1998. In November 1998 P commenced working as a solicitor with the Aboriginal Legal Service in Taree. In May 2000 he was promoted to Solicitor Advocate/Office Manager at Newcastle. On 23 July 2001 he became a Local Court Magistrate but resigned his commission on 27 July 2002, after a short, unhappy career on the Bench. Since 2003, P has been working as a solicitor in various practices, specialising in criminal law. Court was not satisfied that P was disabled for work as a police prosecutor after the end of 1998. Held: the term “at the time of the member’s resignation” does not mean on his last day of service or the day after that. The words must be construed in the context of a superannuation scheme. Semble, the decision maker must be satisfied both at the time of certification and at the time of resignation that the member of the scheme was suffering from the infirmity of mind (or body) alleged. The infirmity must be indefinite at the time of resignation, not temporary or transient, Dicta of IRC in Court Session adopted.
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Evidence Act 1995 Judicial Officers Act 1986 Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906
Cases Cited:	Johnson v SAS Trustee Corporation [2019] NSWDC 925 SASTC v Daykin [2002] NSWIRComm 124 SASTC v Hazlewood [2009] NSWIRComm 157 SASTC v Rossetti [2018] NSWCA 68 Woollard v SASTC [2012] NSWIRComm 51
Texts Cited:	Publius Terentius Afer, Phormio, 161BC
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Roland Scott Day (Plaintiff) SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:	Plaintiff: Counsel - P. Morris S.C. & M. Hammond Solicitor - S. Gray (Cardillo Gray Partners) Defendant: Counsel - T. Ower Solicitor - L. Doyle (SASTC)
File Number(s):	RJ00142/19
Publication restriction:	Nil.