HEST Australia Ltd v Sykley

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

H.E.S.T. Australia Ltd v Sykley [2005] FCA 1381

SUPERANNUATION – Superannuation Complaints Tribunal – whether Superannuation Complaints Tribunal has jurisdiction – whether complainant had standing – whether the Tribunal erred.

Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act1993 (Cth) ss 15, 20, 37

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 applied

Briffa v Hay (1997) 75 FCR 428 referred to

Cabal v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (2001) 113 FCR 154 referred to

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280 referred to

Collins v AMP Superannuation (1997) 75 FCR 565 followed

Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Brayley [2002] FCA 1333 referred to

Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme Board v Dexter [2004] FCA 1434 referred to

Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 followed

Hourn v Farm Plan Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1122 followed

Karalis v Australian Community Pharmacy (1998) 90 FCR 473 followed

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 applied

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 followed

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusef (2001) 206 CLR 323 followed

National Mutual Life Association of Australia Ltd v Campbell (2000) 99 FCR 562 referred to

National Mutual Life Association of Australia Ltd v Jevtovic (unreported, Sundberg J, 8 May 1997) referred to

Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1983) 59 CLR 369

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002; Appellant S106/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 198 ALR 59 cited

Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd v Crocker (2001) 48 ATR 359 referred to

Seafarers’ Retirement Fund v Oppenhuis (1999) 94 FCR 594 referred to

Steed v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 37 ALR 620 referred to

H.E.S.T AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 006 818 695) v JULIE-ANNE SYKLEY
VID 1065 of 2004

CRENNAN J
27 SEPTEMBER 2005
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1065 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

H.E.S.T AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 006 818 695)
APPLICANT

AND:

JULIE-ANNE SYKLEY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CRENNAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal dated 4 August 2004 be affirmed.

2.   The application be dismissed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1065 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

H.E.S.T AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 006 818 695)
APPLICANT

AND:

JULIE-ANNE SYKLEY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CRENNAN J

DATE:

27 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This was an application in the nature of an appeal brought pursuant to s 46 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Complaints Act’). The appeal was from a decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal given on 4 August 2004.

  2. The applicant is…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read HEST Australia Ltd v Sykley 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
[2005] FCA 1381
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, HEST Australia Ltd, was faced with a dispute regarding the distribution of a superannuation benefit upon the death of a member. The deceased, who had been a member of the Fund since 1992, died intestate in 2001. The respondent claimed that she was the proper recipient of the benefit, alleging that she was in a de facto relationship with the deceased for 12 years up until his death. The dispute arose when the applicant decided to pay the entire benefit to the deceased's estate, a decision the respondent contested. The respondent lodged a complaint with the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal under the Complaints Act, arguing that the applicant's decision was unfair and unreasonable as it did not consider her claim. The Tribunal upheld the complaint, finding that the applicant's failure to notify the respondent of its decision and the subsequent payment to the estate was not fair and reasonable.

The legal issues before the Court involved the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review the decision and the reasonableness of the applicant's decision to pay the benefit to the estate without notifying the respondent. The Court had to consider whether the respondent had standing to lodge a complaint and whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the statutory provisions in reaching its decision. Additionally, the Court examined whether the respondent's actions in seeking distribution of funds from the estate in the District Court of Queensland impacted the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

In addressing these issues, the Court found that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Complaints Act. The Court also determined that the respondent had standing, as the applicant had been notified of the respondent's potential interest in the benefit when she informed the applicant of the deceased's death. The Court held that it was unreasonable for the applicant to not notify the respondent of its decision and that the Tribunal's conclusion that the decision was unfair and unreasonable was supported by the evidence. The Court further held that the respondent's actions in the District Court did not affect the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as the complaint related to the distribution of a benefit from the Fund, not the estate. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's determination and dismissed the applicant's appeal.

ORDERS:
1. The determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal dated 4 August 2004 be affirmed.
2. The application be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal dated 4 August 2004 be affirmed.

2. The application be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

The applicant decided to pay the whole of the benefit to the deceased’s estate (‘the estate’). A dispute arose between the applicant and the respondent, as the respondent claimed she was the proper person to receive the benefit. The respondent lodged a complaint in respect of the decision with the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), pursuant to s 14 of the Complaints Act. The Tribunal upheld the complaint and determined that the decision of the Trustee to pay the benefit to the estate was not fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The applicant has appealed to this Court against the determination of the Tribunal. The background facts The deceased commenced as a member of the Fund on 19 November 1992. He died intestate on 6 November 2001. The respondent was not living with the deceased at the date of his death. The respondent sent a facsimile on 28 December 2001 to the applicant advising of the deceased’s death (the ‘facsimile’). The facsimile requested that a claim form for payment of the benefit be forwarded to the deceased’s ‘mother and beneficiary’ Mrs Theresa Hibberd. In the facsimile, the respondent identified herself as the deceased’s ‘former partner’ and provided her contact details. On 12 February 2002 the Fund wrote to Mrs Hibberd and provided her with a claim form to enable her to make an application for payment of the benefit. Mrs Hibberd returned the completed claim form to the applicant on 22 February 2002. It is relevant to note Mrs Hibberd was required to include information in relation to any ‘dependants’ who had survived the deceased in Section B of the claim form. Mrs Hibberd wrote ‘N/A’ (which abbreviation commonly means ‘not applicable’) in Section B and she omitted to sign the foot of the section to certify that the information in Section B was ‘true and correct to the best of [her] knowledge’. On 19 March 2002 the applicant decided to pay all of the benefit in respect of the deceased to the estate. The applicant did not notify the respondent of its decision. Mrs Hibberd was granted letters of administration in respect of the estate on 5 June 2002 and the full amount of the benefit was paid to the estate by the Fund on 19 June 2002. On 6 January 2003 the respondent sent a letter to the Fund advising that she wanted to make a complaint under s 101 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth). The respondent indicated in the letter that she had been in a de facto relationship with the deceased for 12 years until his death and that she believed she had a valid claim to the benefit, but had not been contacted or considered by the respondent before the benefit was paid. The applicant replied by letter dated 28 January 2003 advising the respondent that the original decision had been reviewed and it had decided to reaffirm the decision to pay the benefit to the estate. On 3 March 2003 the respondent lodged a complaint with the Tribunal contesting the applicant’s decision to pay the benefit to the estate. Mrs Hibberd was joined to the complaint to the Tribunal as ‘Joined Party 1’ and Ms Forest Paolucci, who also claimed to be in a de facto relationship with the deceased at the time of his death, was joined as ‘Joined Party 2’. In making a complaint to the Tribunal, the respondent claimed that the applicant’s decision ‘was unfair and unreasonable because it did not include her in the “claim-staking process” and, therefore, had not given due consideration to her claim that she was in a de facto relationship with the deceased for 12 years until his death.’

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

CRENNAN J
Rule 36.2(2)(a) is concerned with the circumstance in which a person ceases to be a member of the Fund and it provides:‘A person will cease to be a Member upon ceasing to be entitled to a Benefit under the Plan.’The Tribunal’s Decision The Tribunal identified the decision under review as being the decision of the applicant, on 19 March 2002, to pay all of the benefit in respect of the deceased to the estate. The respondent was not notified of this decision. The Tribunal indicated that it had conducted its review on all the documents submitted by the parties. It then outlined the circumstances in which the complaint was made and accepted certain background facts. In reliance on s 19 of the Complaints Act, the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction. The Tribunal also considered whether the respondent had standing under s 15(2)(b) of the Complaints Act, on the basis that she was not notified of the applicant’s decision and its failure to notify her was unreasonable. The Tribunal held that the respondent had standing, as the Trustee had been put on notice of the possibility of the respondent having an interest in the benefit when it received notification from the respondent of the death of the deceased. Accordingly, it found the failure of the applicant to notify the respondent was unreasonable. The Tribunal also considered whether it was prohibited from dealing with the complaint under s 20 of the Complaints Act because of the respondent’s action in the District Court of Queensland (the ‘District Court’) seeking distribution of funds from the estate. The Tribunal held that the subject matter of the complaint was the distribution of a benefit from the Fund, which was not a matter before the District Court. After setting out the submissions made by each party, the Tribunal held that its role was ‘to determine whether the decision of the Trustee was fair and reasonable in its operation in relation to the [respondent] and any interested party in the circumstances’. The Tribunal indicated that it ‘took the whole of the evidence and submissions into account’. It decided that this material supported a conclusion that the applicant had received the abovementioned facsimile. The Tribunal held that the fact that the respondent described herself in the facsimile as the ‘former partner’ of the deceased should have alerted the applicant to the fact that the respondent may have had an interest in the benefit so that she should have been included in its further enquires in relation to the deceased. In particular, the use of the word ‘former’ could mean that the respondent’s partnership with the deceased was terminated by death or at some earlier time, which raised the possibility of some dependency at the time of death. The Tribunal held that it was not fair and reasonable for the applicant to take the respondent’s request to send the claim form to Mrs Hibberd as an indication that the respondent ‘knew she had no rights under the Trust Deed or alternatively if she had rights that she was happy for them to be foregone’.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CRENNAN J

Full text does not contain this section.