Erzurumlu v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd - [2013] NSWSC 1115

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Erzurumlu v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1115
Hearing dates: 30 to 31 July 2013 and 1 August 2013
Decision date: 16 August 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Ball J
Decision:
Proceeding dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: CONTRACT - superannuation - insurance - claim for benefit - whether plaintiff totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the relevant superannuation trust deed and insurance policy - duty on a trustee of a superannuation fund in determining a claim for a benefit - duty on an insurer in determining a claim for a benefit
Legislation Cited: Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994
Worker's Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 36; (2010) 242 CLR 254
Halloran v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 913
Manglicmot v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 204
Re Hannover Life of Australasia Ltd v Sayseng [2005] NSWCA 214; (2005) 13 ANZ Ins Cas 90-213
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 945
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 583
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Huseyin Erzurumlu (Plaintiff)
Kellogg Superannuation Pty Limited (ABN 89 008 426 131) (First Defendant)
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited (ACN 062 395 484) (Second Defendant)
Representation: M J Bleasel / G B Beauchamp (Plaintiff)
M B J Lee SC / C J S Purdy (First Defendant)
M V McManus (Second Defendant)
Firths - The Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Kennedys (First Defendant)
TurksLegal (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/272912
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiff, Mr Erzurumlu, was employed by Kellogg (Aust) Pty Ltd (Kellogg) between 17 October 1988 and 20 April 2005. During the time he was employed, he was a contributing member of the Kellogg Retirement Fund (the Fund). The Fund was established by a trust deed dated 1 October 1976 (the Trust Deed). The first defendant, Kellogg Superannuation Pty Limited (the Trustee), is the trustee of the Fund. Under the terms of the Trust Deed a member is entitled to the payment of a benefit on becoming totally and permanently disabled whilst employed by Kellogg. Under cl 25.1(n) of the Trust Deed the Trustee has power to take out and maintain insurance in respect of its liability to make payments in accordance with the Trust Deed. In exercise of that power, the Trustee has insured its liability to pay total and permanent disability benefits with the second defendant, Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited (the Insurer), under a Group Life Contract No VGL 8034 (the Policy).

Mr Erzurumlu suffered a number of injuries in connection with his employment with Kellogg, the most serious of which was an injury to his lower back on 5 April 2003. The issue in this proceeding is whether, as a result of those injuries, Mr Erzurumlu suffered from total and permanent disablement within the meaning of the Trust Deed and the Policy.

The Trust Deed and…

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 Erzurumlu v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd 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: [2013] NSWSC 1115
Decision Date: 16 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Erzurumlu v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Erzurumlu, who sought a declaration that he was totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the relevant superannuation trust deed and insurance policy. This claim was made against the defendants, Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd and others, who were the trustees of the superannuation fund and the insurer, respectively. The dispute centred around whether the plaintiff qualified for a disability benefit under the terms of the superannuation trust deed and the associated insurance policy.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the terms "totally and permanently disabled" as they appeared in the superannuation trust deed and the insurance policy. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff met the criteria for such a disability, and if so, whether this entitled him to the benefits claimed. Furthermore, the court examined the obligations and duties of the trustees and the insurer in assessing and determining the claim for benefits.

In its reasoning, the court considered medical evidence and expert opinions to assess the plaintiff's condition. It held that the plaintiff did not meet the criteria for total and permanent disability as defined in the trust deed and insurance policy. The court found that while the plaintiff had significant impairments, they did not amount to a total and permanent disability. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that he was not entitled to the disability benefits sought. The court also examined the conduct of the trustees and the insurer in handling the claim, but found no breach of duty on their part in determining the claim for benefits.

Orders