Friar v Brown

Case [2015] FCA 135

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Friar v Brown [2015] FCA 135

Citation: Friar v Brown [2015] FCA 135
Appeal from: D14-15\074 [2014] SCTA 222
D14-15\075 [2014] SCTA 223
Parties: CHINA MAY FRIAR v MARIAN PATRICIA BROWN (ON BEHALF OF LIAM FRIAR), MARIAN PATRICIA BROWN (ON BEHALF OF CARMICHAEL FRIAR), AMANDA CHANCELLOR (ON BEHALF OF JYDEN BRUMMELL) and SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
File numbers: NSD 1146 of 2014
NSD 1147 of 2014
Judge: GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment: 27 February 2015
Catchwords: SUPERANNUATION – review of a decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal – whether Tribunal erred in concluding that the applicant and the deceased did not have an interdependency relationship  
Legislation:

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 10, 10A
Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 37, 46

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth) rr 1.04AAAA, 6.22

Cases cited:

Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Schemev Edington [2011] FCAFC 8; (2011) 119 ALD 472
Cameron v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [2003] FCAFC 214; (2003) 130 FCR 122
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 322; (1993) 43 FCR 280
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Pty Ltd v Wright [2014] FCA 1163
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1
Hornsby v Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees (No 1) [2003] FCA 54; (2003) 126 FCR 484
Sharp Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (1995) 59 FCR 6
TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 82 ALR 175
Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council [2001] HCA 12; (2001) 202 CLR 439
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54

Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 87
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent: The first respondent submitted save as to costs
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent submitted save as to costs
Counsel for the Third Respondent: The third respondent appeared in person
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: The fourth respondent submitted save as to costs

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1146 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

CHINA MAY FRIAR
Applicant
AND:

MARIAN PATRICIA BROWN (ON BEHALF OF LIAM FRIAR)
First Respondent

MARIAN PATRICIA BROWN (ON BEHALF OF CARMICHAEL FRIAR)
Second Respondent

AMANDA CHANCELLOR (ON BEHALF OF JYDEN BRUMMELL)
Third Respondent

SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

GRIFFITHS J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 FEBRUARY 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.There is no order as to costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1147 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

CHINA MAY FRIAR
Applicant
AND:

Continue reading Friar v Brown

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Friar v Brown [2015] FCA 135
Case
[2015] FCA 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Friar v Brown involved a dispute over the distribution of superannuation death benefits. The applicant, Ms Friar, appealed a decision by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, which had rejected her claim to a share of her deceased brother’s superannuation benefits, finding that she and her brother did not have an interdependency relationship. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the Tribunal had erred in concluding that Ms Friar and her deceased brother did not have an interdependency relationship, as required by the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The Court had to review the evidence presented and the reasoning of the Tribunal in this regard. Ms Friar argued that the Tribunal had not correctly applied the relevant legal criteria and had placed undue weight on certain evidence while ignoring other relevant material.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was not in error. The Court found that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence and applied the relevant criteria for establishing an interdependency relationship. The Court noted that the Tribunal's role was limited to reviewing the Trustee's determination and deciding whether it was fair and reasonable in the given circumstances. The Court did not endorse all the language used by the Tribunal but found that the Tribunal's conclusions were within its remit. The Court concluded that the Tribunal had not erred in its assessment of the relationship between Ms Friar and her deceased brother.

The Court dismissed both of Ms Friar's appeals, finding that the Tribunal's decision was correct. The Court made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. There is no order as to costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

For all these reasons, Ms Friar submitted that her circumstances satisfied each of the four criteria set out in s 10A(1) of the SIS Act. Summary of Ms Friar’s evidence in the appeals As noted above, Ms Friar tendered a selection of documents, most but not all of which were before the Tribunal. Ms Friar did not seek to persuade the Court as to why it should take into account any materials which were not before the Tribunal. The Court indicated that it would only have regard to documents which were before the Tribunal, were tendered in the appeals and to which the Court’s attention was specifically drawn. The documents which were before the Tribunal and which were relied upon by Ms Friar in support of her appeals may be summarised as follows. First, she relied upon a series of letters, emails, Facebook pages and statutory declarations which contained statements from various persons concerning her relationship with her brother. Some of the material supported her claim that theirs was a relationship of interdependency, while other material was inconsistent with that characterisation. The material included letters from both Ms Friar’s parents which stated that the relationship between Ms Friar and her brother (as well as her younger sister) was one of interdependency and resulted in large measure from the family difficulties which they experienced as children and adults. Secondly, Ms Friar relied on internal working documents of the Trustee under the first superannuation policy, including a document prepared by the case manager who recommended to the Trustee that the death benefit be paid to Mr Friar’s three sons (each to receive an amount of 25 per cent) and that 25 per cent also be paid to Ms Friar as a financial dependent. After referring to Ms Brown’s objection to Ms Friar receiving any benefit, the case manager stated:Having considered the documents provided, it is noted that the childhoods of the late Member and his siblings was quite difficult. As a result they all bonded tightly and ensured that each cared for and protected the others as their parents had not played the traditional parental roles well. The Trustee is satisfied that the relationship between China Friar and the late Member was of a financially dependent nature owing to their shared residences and shared commitment to caring for one another. The Trustee is also comfortable that both Liam and Carmichael are the children of the late Member. What is unclear is the ongoing care for the children. Currently Marian Brown has responsibility to care for the minors however this is a temporary order. Sa’ra-Skye Brown, the mother of the children has ongoing health issues that impede her ability to properly care for her children.The Trustee is currently identifying the circumstances of Jaiden (sic) Friar/ Chancellor and will determine the outcome of any monies set aside for him once his claim eligibility is assessed.After a review of the new evidence provided there has been no substantial evidence received to alter the original the decision (sic), therefore the proposed proportion allocation is deemed reasonable.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For completeness, it might be noted that the rejection of Ms Friar’s appeals does not mean that the Court agrees with or endorses all of the language used by the Tribunal in its statements of reasons. It should not be assumed, for example, that the Court takes the view that an interdependency relationship can never be established in a household where siblings live together and one also happens to be married to, and lives with, a third person. Every case has to be looked at according to its particular circumstances. The Court does not read the Tribunal’s reasons, particularly in relation to its second determination, as precluding the possibility of a relationship of interdependency being established in such circumstances, as long as the other relevant requirements are also established. The Court considers that the language used by the Tribunal in respect of this matter reflects, correctly, the Tribunal’s own limited role in reviewing the Trustee’s determination and determining whether it was “fair and reasonable” in the particular circumstances here. Conclusion Both appeals should be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.