Edwards v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 79 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Edwards v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2017] FCA 375

Appeal from: Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, Determination Number D15-16\127
File numbers: VID 628 of 2016
VID 629 of 2016
Judge: MORTIMER J
Date of judgment: 12 April 2017
Catchwords:

SUPERANNUATION – appeal of Superannuation Complaints Tribunal determination under s 46 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) – applicant not a party to the Tribunal determination – lack of standing – application dismissed

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of Superannuation Complaints Tribunal determination under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – standing – definition of “a person aggrieved” – judicial review limited to appeal of decision from Tribunal

SUPERANNUATION – construction of s 114 of the Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth) – whether s 114 permitted payment of benefit directly to “eligible child” – legislature contemplated a payment might be made directly to a child

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under rr 9.23 and 9.25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – purpose of rr 9.23 and 9.25 – application dismissed

Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review)Act1977 (Cth), s 10

Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth), ss 14, 15, 18, 27, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 46

Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth), ss 3, 27C, 40, 41, 109AB, 112, 114, 116, 118

Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Act 2011 (Cth), s 5

Superannuation Act 1990 (Cth), s 20

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth), ss 52, 101

Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), ss 5, 11, 13, 14

Federal Court Rules2011 (Cth), rr 4.12, 9.23, 9.24, 9.25
Cases cited:

Assarapin v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2016] FCAFC 9; 239 FCR 161

Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated v Commonwealth [1980] HCA 53; 146 CLR 493

Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [1999] HCA 59; 200 CLR 1

In Re Ross; Wingfield v Blair [1907] 1 Ch 482

Kowalski v AMP Superannuation [2010] FCA 1170

Military Superannuation & Benefits Board of Trustees No 1 v Batt [2005] FCA 1865; 149 FCR 448

National Mutual Life Association of Australia Ltd v Campbell [2000] FCA 852; 99 FCR 562

New South Wales v Paige [2002] NSWCA 235; 60 NSWLR 371

Re Prime’s Estate (1883) 48 LT 208

Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health (1995) 56 FCR 50

Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2016] FCA 179

Webbv Teeling [2009] FCA 1094
Date of hearing: 27 March 2017
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 197
Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant appears in person
Counsel for the Respondent in VID 628 of 2016, and Second Respondent in VID 629 of 2016: Ms E Bennett
Solicitor for the Respondent in VID 628 of 2016, and Second Respondent in VID 629 of 2016: Allens
Counsel for the First Respondent in VID 629 of 2016: The First Respondent in proceeding VID 629 of…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards v Commonwealth Superannuation 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
[2017] FCA 375
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Edwards v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, the applicant sought judicial review of a determination made by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT). The applicant, not a party to the SCT's determination, argued the decision was unfair or unreasonable under the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth). The applicant also sought an order under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for judicial review of the SCT's decision. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had standing to seek judicial review of the SCT's decision, and whether section 114 of the Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth) permitted a benefit to be paid directly to an "eligible child".

The central legal issues revolved around the definition of "a person aggrieved" under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and whether the applicant had standing to seek judicial review of the SCT's determination. Additionally, the court had to interpret section 114 of the Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth) to determine if it allowed for a benefit to be paid directly to an "eligible child". The court found that the applicant did not have standing to seek judicial review of the SCT's decision as they were not a party to the SCT's determination. Furthermore, the court held that section 114 of the Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth) did not permit a benefit to be paid directly to an "eligible child", but rather, the benefit must be paid to the legal personal representative of the deceased member.

The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's interlocutory application under rules 9.23 and 9.25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) as well as the substantive application. The court found that the applicant did not have standing to seek judicial review of the SCT's decision as they were not a party to the SCT's determination. The court also held that section 114 of the Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth) did not permit a benefit to be paid directly to an "eligible child". As a result, the applicant's application was dismissed with costs.

The court ordered that the applicant's interlocutory application under rules 9.23 and 9.25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be dismissed with costs and that the application be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s interlocutory application under rules 9.23 and 9.25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be dismissed with costs.

2. The application be dismissed with costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Moving to the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth), s 14 of that Act allows complaints to be made to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal in relation to certain decisions of trustees:14 Complaints about decisions of trustees other than decisions to admit persons to life policy funds(1)This section applies if the trustee of a fund has made a decision (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) in relation to:(a)a particular member or a particular former member of a regulated superannuation fund; or(b)a particular beneficiary or a particular former beneficiary of an approved deposit fund.(1A)This section does not apply to a decision of a trustee in respect of which a complaint can be made to the Tribunal under section 14A.(2)Subject to subsection (3) and section 15, a person may make a complaint (other than an excluded complaint) to the Tribunal, that the decision is or was unfair or unreasonable.Note: Although a complaint is about the decision of a trustee, the Tribunal may join an insurer or other person as a party to the complaint (see subsection 18(1)). The Tribunal may then review any decision of a person joined as a party that may be relevant to the complaint.(3)If a person has been given a written notice by the trustee of a fund setting out:(a)the trustee’s decision in relation to the person’s objection to the payment of a death benefit; and(b)the prescribed period within which the person must complain to the Tribunal about the decision;the person may only make a complaint under this section to the Tribunal within that period.(4)The Tribunal cannot deal with a complaint under this section about a trustee’s decision that must be made within the prescribed period referred to in subsection (3) if the complaint is not made within that period.(5)The Tribunal cannot deal with a complaint under this section to the extent that it relates to excluded subject matter.(6)The Tribunal cannot deal with a complaint under this section that relates to the management of a fund as a whole.(6A)The Tribunal cannot deal with a complaint under this section about a decision of a trustee relating to the payment of a disability benefit because of total and permanent disability if the complaint is not made within the following period:(a)in the case of a person who, before the making of the decision, permanently ceased particular employment because of the physical or mental condition that gave rise to the claim for disability benefit—4 years after the making of the decision;(b) in any other case—6 years after the making of the decision.(6B)The Tribunal cannot deal with a complaint under this section about a decision of a trustee relating to the payment of a disability benefit because of total and permanent disability if:(a)before the making of the decision, the person permanently ceased particular employment (whether before or after commencement of this subsection) because of the physical or mental condition that gave rise to the claim for disability benefit; and(b)the claim was not lodged, or is not lodged, with the trustee, within 2 years after the person permanently ceased that employment.(6C)Without limiting the meaning of a decision of a trustee relating to the payment of a disability benefit in any other provision of this Act, that expression means, for the purposes of subsections (6A) and (6B), the original decision of the trustee in relation to the matter.(6D)For the purposes of subsection (6C), if, as a result of a complaint about the original decision of the trustee under arrangements made under section 101 of the Supervision Act, the original decision was confirmed or varied, or another decision was substituted for the original decision:(a)the decision as so confirmed or varied, or the substituted decision, is taken to be the original decision; and(b)the decision as so confirmed or varied, or the substituted decision, is taken to have been made at the time when the original decision was made.(7)A complaint under subsection (2) is to be made by sending or delivering a written complaint to the office of the Tribunal.Note: See section 3 for definitions of complaint, complainant, excluded complaint and excluded subject matter.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.