Evans v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Evans v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2002] FCA 79

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – joinder of parties – where Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is only named respondent – whether interests of original decision-maker directly affected – whether a necessary party – whether need for real contradictor.

Federal Court Rules O 6 r 8

R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal;  ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13 referred to
Merit Protection Commissioner v Nonnenmacher (1999) 86 FCR 112 referred to
News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 193 referred to
Strickland and Nudding on behalf of theMaduwongga People v Native Title Registrar [1999] FCA 1089 referred to
Commonwealth v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1998) 152 ALR 182 referred to
Geographical Indications Committee v The Honourable Justice O’Connor [2000] FCA 1877 referred to

ROGER KEITH EVANS v SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
A71 of 2001

FINN J
CANBERRA
8 FEBRUARY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A71 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	ROGER KEITH EVANS APPLICANT
AND:	SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to O 6 r 8 of the Federal Court Rules, the CSS Board be added as the second Respondent to the proceeding.

2.The Applicant pay the CSS Board’s costs of this motion.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A71 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	ROGER KEITH EVANS APPLICANT
AND:	SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	8 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The present application by the CSS Board (a body created under the Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth)) is to be joined as a party under O 6 r 8 of the Federal Court Rules in a proceeding brought by Roger Keith Evans against the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. In that proceeding Mr Evans seeks an extension of time in which to make application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). That proposed application, which also embodies a claim for a writ of mandamus, seeks, in effect, mandatory orders that the Tribunal hear and determine an application Mr Evans had made to it in respect of what purported to be a late election to preserve benefits in a superannuation fund pursuant to s 157 of the Superannuation Act 1976. The Tribunal declined to entertain that application on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction so to do. The Tribunal characterised the relevant decision as one having been made on 9 May 1990, at a time at which the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme was not a fund in respect of which it had jurisdiction, even though it was reconsidered and affirmed in June 1991. The 1990 decision was also one in which a late election application was made under s 157. Mr Evans asserted that the relevant decision was the one made 25 May…