Greig v SAS Trustee Corporation

The case of Greig v SAS Trustee Corporation involved the plaintiff, who had applied for an increase in his police superannuation benefits, and the defendant, the SAS Trustee Corporation, which was responsible for managing the superannuation scheme. The central dispute centred on the date from which the increased benefits should commence. The Police Superannuation Advisory Committee had initially made a decision under section 10(1A)(b) of the relevant legislation on 25 November 2021, which was then communicated to the plaintiff on 9 December 2021. The committee also decided to backdate the benefits to 14 June 2019. Subsequently, on 16 December 2021, the committee made another decision under section 10(1A)(c) and certified the plaintiff on 31 December 2021, once again backdating the pension increase to 14 June 2019. The plaintiff subsequently commenced proceedings, with the only issue being the date from which the increased benefit should commence.

The court had to determine whether the decision of the Police Superannuation Advisory Committee was valid and whether the plaintiff's application was statute-barred. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred because the decision to backdate the pension increase was made on 25 November, notified on 9 December, and the proceedings were initiated more than six months later. The court had to consider the requirements of sections 10(1A)(b) and 10(1A)(c) of the legislation, as well as the adequacy of the notice provided to the plaintiff. The court determined that the decision under section 10(1A)(c) was necessary and that the earlier decision under section 10(1A)(b) was unnecessary. The court further found that the letter dated 25 November did not provide adequate notice of the decision to backdate the pension increase.

In light of its findings, the court held that the defendant had to make its decision under section 10(1A)(c) and that the decision under section 10(1A)(b) was unnecessary. The court also found that the letter of 25 November did not provide adequate notice of the decision to backdate the pension increase. Consequently, the defendant was not statute-barred from addressing the plaintiff's claim. The court dismissed the notice of motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.