FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kestel v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2010] FCA 1300
Citation: Kestel v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2010] FCA 1300 Parties: DANNIIELLE ELIZABETH KESTEL v THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL and ASGARD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED File number(s): NSD 685 of 2010 Judge: JAGOT J Date of judgment: 25 November 2010 Catchwords: AGENCY – whether solicitor had authority to receive documents – whether notice given within the meaning of s 14(3) of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) Legislation: Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) Cases cited: IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 205
Kent v Hogarth [1995] QCA 472
Kowalski v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2010] FCA 473
Magripilis & Anor v Baird & Anor [1926] St R Qd 89
Midland Bank plc v Serter [1995] 1 Fam Law R 1034
Ray v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2004] FCA 1120
Saffron Walden Second Benefit Building Society v Rayner (1880) 14 Ch D 406
Singer v Trustee of the property of Munro & Anor (bankrupts) [1981] 3 All ER 215
White v Illawarra Mutual Building Society Ltd [2002] NSWCA 164
Wright v Somerton [2004] QSC 231Date of hearing: 16 November 2010 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 23 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr J Brent of John Brent & Co Counsel for the Respondents: The Respondents did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 685 of 2010
BETWEEN: DANNIIELLE ELIZABETH KESTEL
ApplicantAND: THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
First RespondentASGARD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
JAGOT J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 NOVEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application filed on 2 November 2010 be dismissed.
2.Each party pay their own costs of the application.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 685 of 2010
BETWEEN: DANNIIELLE ELIZABETH KESTEL
ApplicantAND: THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
First RespondentASGARD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
JAGOT J
DATE:
25 NOVEMBER 2010
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This application concerns s 14(3) of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act). Section 14(3) is as follows:
If a person has been given a written notice by the trustee of a fund setting out:
(a)the trustee’s decision in relation to the person’s objection to the payment of a death benefit; and
(b)the prescribed period within which the person must complain to the Tribunal about the decision;
the person may only make a complaint under this section to the Tribunal within that period.
The facts may be stated briefly. The applicant is a person who has an interest in her husband’s death benefit. The second respondent is the trustee of the fund from which that benefit is to be…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kestel v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal 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
- [2010] FCA 1300
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court dismissed the application and ordered each party to pay their own costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.