District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Fox v SAS Trustee Corporation [2019] NSWDC 277 Hearing dates: 13- 15, 17, 20-22 May 2019 Date of orders: 21 June 2019 Decision date: 21 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Hatzistergos DCJ Decision: See [244].
Catchwords: POLICE - Member of police force resigned from force due to mental health illness - Plaintiff later rejoined police force - Whether the plaintiff was incapable from an infirmity of mind of discharging the duties of his office at his time of resignation Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 136
Police Regulation (Superannuation) 1906 Act (NSW) ss 3, 5, 10, 10B(1A), 10B(2)Cases Cited: Boland v SAS Trustee Corporation (1999) 97 IR 127
Ford, Roger v State Authority Superannuation Board (1994) NSWIRC 217
Ford v State Authorities Superannuation Board (unreported, Industrial Court of NSW, Marks J, 14 October 1994)
Harding v SAS Trustee Corporation [2011] NSWIRComm 4
Re Boothroyd (1986) 1 QDR 167
SAS Trustee Corporation v Ainsworth [2011] NSWIR Comm 128
SAS Trustee Corporation v Daykin (2002) 115 IR 172
SAS Trustee Corporation v Rossetti [2018] NSWCA 68
Wooden v State Authority Trust Corporation (Unreported, 28 July 1998, Industrial Relations Commission)Texts Cited: N/A Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jeffrey Ronald Fox (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr P. O’Rourke (for the Plaintiff)
Mr M. Best (for the Defendant)
File Number(s): RJ 230/18 Publication restriction: N/A
Judgment
Introduction
-
On 20 December 2010 the Plaintiff made an application to the Defendant for a superannuation allowance in terms of s 10 and s 10B(2) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) 1906 Act, [1] such application relating to the Plaintiff’s duties as a police officer between 7 December 1984 and 3 November 1997.
1. Hereinafter the ‘1906 Act’.
-
Section 10(1A) of the 1906 Act makes provision for an annual superannuation allowance to be paid to a disabled member of the NSW Police in particular circumstances.
-
On 5 September 2017 the Defendant (through its delegate) decided that it:
“… is not satisfied that there is a sufficient basis to certify that [the Plaintiff] was, in terms of s 10B(2) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, incapable of discharging the duties of his office at the time of his resignation on 3 November 1997 from the claimed infirmities of anxiety and depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.”
-
On 28 February 2018 the Plaintiff, being a person aggrieved by the Defendant’s decision of 5 September 2017, in terms of s 88 of the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 [2] filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of NSW.
2. Hereinafter the ‘1996 Act’.
-
On 10 April 2018 the NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision in SAS Trustee Corporation v Rossetti. [3]
3. [2018] NSWCA 68.
-
On 24 May 2018, pursuant to an application brought by the Plaintiff (with the Defendant’s consent), the Supreme Court of NSW transferred the Plaintiff’s appeal to this Court.
-
On 3 September 2018 the Statement of Claim was filed in…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fox v SAS Trustee 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 277
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine if the plaintiff's mental health condition at the time of his resignation constituted an infirmity of mind that rendered him incapable of performing his duties. The analysis involved assessing the plaintiff's mental state and whether it met the threshold for an infirmity of mind under the relevant statutory provisions. The court examined the evidence provided regarding the plaintiff's mental health, the impact of his condition on his ability to perform his duties, and the nature of the infirmity of mind as defined in the Police Superannuation Act.
The court found that the plaintiff was not incapable of discharging the duties of his office at the time of his resignation due to his mental health condition. The evidence indicated that while the plaintiff experienced mental health issues, these did not meet the statutory definition of an infirmity of mind that would render him incapable of performing his duties. Consequently, the plaintiff's resignation was not due to an infirmity of mind, and the SAS Trustee Corporation's claim for an allowance was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's capacity to perform his duties despite his mental health challenges, which did not rise to the level of an infirmity of mind as required by the Act.
The final orders of the court dismissed the claim by the SAS Trustee Corporation for an allowance under the Police Superannuation Act, affirming that the plaintiff was not incapable of discharging the duties of his office at the time of his resignation due to an infirmity of mind. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurately determining the nature and severity of mental health conditions in the context of statutory definitions and their implications for police officers' superannuation entitlements.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [244].
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.