Genikas v Statewide Superannuation Trust

Nathan Genikas brought an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal affirming the decision of the Trustee of the Trust Deed of the Statewide Superannuation Trust to pay the benefit payable by the Trust on the death of Rachael Appleby to Nathan to be held on his behalf on trust by the Public Trustee for South Australia until reaching the age of 18 years. The Trustee had decided to pay all the benefit to the Public Trustee in trust for Nathan because, as the Trustee said in a letter to Mr Genikas dated 25 October 2005, the trustee had a duty to protect the interests of minor children and had adopted a policy to pay such death benefits to the Public Trustee (in trust). Mr Genikas said that he should have been appointed trustee of the benefit on behalf of Nathan, as it would be then more valuable to Nathan upon him attaining 18 years of age. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Trustee. The appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed.

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal erred in law by affirming the decision of the Trustee to appoint the Public Trustee as the trustee of the benefit payable to Nathan. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal did not err in law in its understanding or application of cl 27(g)(ii) of the Trust Deed of SST even though the Trustee may have done so. The Tribunal’s reasons recognised that the Trustee had a discretion as to who to appoint as trustee of the SST benefit for Nathan, and then considered (as it was required to do by s 37(6) of the Act) whether the proper exercise of that discretion could fairly and reasonably have led to the appointment of the Public Trustee. It did not treat the policy of the Trustee as decisive, or indeed as relevant. Consequently, the Tribunal did not err in law in its understanding or application of cl 27(g)(ii) of the Trust Deed of SST even though the Trustee may have done so.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.