Flexiplan Australia Ltd v Pankhurst - [2001] FCA 1535

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Flexiplan Australia Ltd v Pankhurst & Others [2001] FCA 1535
SUPERANNUATION – appeal from Superannuation Complaints Tribunal – whether Tribunal applied incorrect test in finding that decision of trustee was unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances.
Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth), s 46
TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v FCT (1988) 82 ALR 175 referred to
Jedko Game Co P/L v Collector of Customs (NSW) (1987) 12 ALD 491 referred to
Jeffcoat v Queensland Coal & Oil Shale Mining Industry (Superannuation) Ltd (2000) FCA 655 referred to
Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd v Crocker [2001] FCA 1330 referred to
National Mutual Life Association of Australia Ltd v Campbell (2000) 99 FCR 562 referred to
Lykogiannis v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 327 referred to
FLEXIPLAN AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 056 678 427) V FAITH CLARICE PANKHURST, RAEAL MARY GALLAGHER, MICHAEL DAMIEN GALLAGHER, ANTONY FRANCIS GALLAGHER AND NATHAN DAMIEN GALLAGHER
W9 OF 2001
LEE J
31 OCTOBER 2001
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W9 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

FLEXIPLAN AUSTRALIA LTD
(ACN 056 678 427)
APPLICANT

AND:

FAITH CLARICE PANKHURST
FIRST RESPONDENT

RAEAL MARY GALLAGHER
SECOND RESPONDENT

MICHAEL DAMIEN GALLAGHER
THIRD RESPONDENT

ANTONY FRANCIS GALLAGHER
FOURTH RESPONDENT

NATHAN DAMIEN GALLAGHER
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LEE J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 OCTOBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The “appeal” be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay costs to counsel for the first respondent being such sum as the taxing officer allows as a reasonable fee to counsel appointed as “pro bono” counsel by the Court pursuant to O.80 of the Federal Court Rules.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W9 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

FLEXIPLAN AUSTRALIA LTD
(ACN 056 678 427)
APPLICANT

AND:

FAITH CLARICE PANKHURST
FIRST RESPONDENT

RAEAL MARY GALLAGHER
SECOND RESPONDENT

MICHAEL DAMIEN GALLAGHER
THIRD RESPONDENT

ANTONY FRANCIS GALLAGHER
FOURTH RESPONDENT

NATHAN DAMIEN GALLAGHER
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LEE J

DATE:

31 OCTOBER 2001

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an “appeal” from a determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 11 December 2000. The “appeal” is brought pursuant to s 46 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) on a question of law. The original jurisdiction conferred on the Court is not for the review of the whole of the decision of the Tribunal, subject to satisfaction of the qualifying condition that a question of law be shown to exist. The jurisdiction conferred is limited to resolving the controversy between the parties on a question of law. (See: TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v FCT (1988) 82 ALR 175 per Gummow J at 178‑182).
The Tribunal determined that the decision of the applicant (“the Trustee”) as trustee of a superannuation fund (“the Fund”) to pay a death benefit from the Fund to the first, third, fourth and fifth…

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 Flexiplan Australia Ltd v Pankhurst 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: [2001] FCA 1535
Decision Date: 31 OCTOBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Flexiplan Australia Ltd v Pankhurst was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute at hand was between Flexiplan Australia Ltd, the applicant, and Pankhurst, the first respondent. The matter concerned an appeal against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court, which had ruled in favour of the first respondent. The primary issue for the Federal Court to determine was whether the appeal was valid and warranted a review of the lower court's decision.

The court considered the procedural requirements for an appeal under the Federal Court Rules and the relevant legislation. The court found that the appeal was not properly before it, as it was not filed within the required time frame and did not meet the necessary criteria for an extension of time. The court held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of time for filing the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs to counsel for the first respondent, who had been appointed as pro bono counsel by the Court.

In dismissing the appeal, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and timelines in the judicial process. The court's decision underscores the need for applicants to ensure that all procedural requirements are met when seeking to appeal a decision of the Federal Circuit Court. The court's ruling in this case serves as a reminder to practitioners of the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules in the pursuit of an appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The “appeal” be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay costs to counsel for the first respondent being such sum as the taxing officer allows as a reasonable fee to counsel appointed as “pro bono” counsel by the Court pursuant to O.80 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W9 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	FLEXIPLAN AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 056 678 427) APPLICANT
AND:	FAITH CLARICE PANKHURST FIRST RESPONDENT RAEAL MARY GALLAGHER SECOND RESPONDENT MICHAEL DAMIEN GALLAGHER THIRD RESPONDENT ANTONY FRANCIS GALLAGHER FOURTH RESPONDENT NATHAN DAMIEN GALLAGHER FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 OCTOBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	LEE J
DATE:	31 OCTOBER 2001
PLACE:	PERTH