Flegeltaub v Telstra Super Pty Ltd - [1998] VSC 144

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

PRACTICE COURT

Not Restricted

No. 6380 of 1995

GLENDA FLEGELTAUB Plaintiff
v.

TELSTRA SUPER PTY. LTD. Defendant

---

JUDGE: BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 28 OCTOBER 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20 NOVEMBER 1998
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: FLEGELTAUB v. TELSTRA SUPER PTY. LTD.
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSC 144

---

CATCHWORDS:

COURTS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Decision of trustee - Interrogatories as to reasons for decision - State of mind of corporation

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr. P. Bingham Maurice Blackburn & Co.
For the Defendant Mr. D. McLean Phillips Fox

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal by the defendant from the order of Master Wheeler made 13 October 1998 whereby the Master ordered that the defendant file and serve further and better answers to the plaintiff's interrogatories delivered for its examination, numbered 1(b) and (c) and 3(b) and (c) respectively.
Between March 1975 and February 1994 the plaintiff was employed by Telstra Corporation (formerly known as Australian Telecommunications Corporation). The defendant Telecom Super Pty. Ltd. is and was at all times material the trustee of the Telecom Superannuation Scheme. On 28 February 1994 the plaintiff retired from her employment with Telstra on the ground of invalidity.
On 18 February 1993 the plaintiff made an application to the defendant for payment of the total and permanent invalidity benefit which she contends she is entitled to under the Superannuation Scheme. On 11 May 1994 the defendant in its capacity as trustee of the scheme rejected the plaintiff's application.
On 15 November 1994 the plaintiff, through her solicitor, requested the defendant to reconsider its decision. The defendant did so, but on 13 December 1994 it again rejected the plaintiff's claim.
On 30 June 1995 the plaintiff filed a writ in the Court seeking a declaration to the effect that the defendant's decisions are void and of no effect in law, a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a total and permanent invalidity benefit pursuant to the trust deed of the scheme, and an order that the defendant pay her such benefit.
The plaintiff alleges that in making the decisions it did the defendant (inter alia) breached the duty it owed to the plaintiff to give her application real and genuine consideration, breached its duty not to act unreasonably, arbitrarily, or oppressively and breached its duty to the plaintiff to consider her application responsibly. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant's decisions to reject her applications were not sound.
On or about 10 January 1996 the plaintiff delivered 12 interrogatories for the examination of the defendant. Interrogatories 1(a), 3(a), 5 and 6 are not the subject of any dispute between the parties and can be put to one side. The plaintiff's application before the Master was that the defendant answer the remaining interrogatories. Apart from interrogatories 1(b) and (c) and 3(b) and (c) the Master rejected the application. As the appeal is a hearing de novo, the plaintiff again seeks orders…

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 Flegeltaub v Telstra Super 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: [1998] VSC 144
Decision Date: 20 November 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Flegeltaub v Telstra Super Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The case revolved around a dispute concerning the decision of a trustee of a superannuation fund. The plaintiff, Flegeltaub, sought to understand the reasons behind the defendant's decision to deny a claim for benefits from the superannuation fund. The central issue was whether the court could order the defendant to provide specific details about the state of mind of the corporation when it made its decision.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the trustee of a superannuation fund was obliged to disclose the reasons for its decision, particularly focusing on the state of mind of the corporation. The plaintiff argued that the defendant must provide detailed reasons for its decision, including the state of mind of the corporation. The defendant contended that such information was not required as it did not fall within the scope of reasons for decision under the applicable legislation.

The court held that the trustee's decision-making process was a matter of internal deliberation and that the state of mind of the corporation was not a relevant factor to be disclosed. The court emphasised that the disclosure of reasons for decision should be limited to the factual basis and the legal considerations that led to the decision. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the information regarding the state of mind of the corporation as it did not pertain to the reasons for the decision.

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the defendant, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the information regarding the state of mind of the corporation. The court clarified that while the reasons for a decision must be provided, the internal thought processes of the corporation were not required. The court did not order the defendant to disclose further details beyond what was already provided.

Orders