Kowalski v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal - [2010] FCA 473

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kowalski v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2010] FCA 473

Citation: Kowalski v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2010] FCA 473

Parties: KAZIMIR KOWALSKI v SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL and AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED ABN 31 008 414 104

File number: SAD 159 of 2009

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 14 May 2010

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal against decision of Superannuation Complaints Tribunal under s 46 of Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) – whether decision to refuse to exercise jurisdiction amounts to determination under s 46 of Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth)

Held: appeal dismissed – definition of determination under s 46 of Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) limited to final and ultimate determination of substance of complaint.

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 14, 37 and 46
Federal Court Rules O 20 r 5, O 54 rr 3, 4,

Cases cited: Ray v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (2004) 138 FCR 548
Yao v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] FCA 18

Date of hearing: 18 February 2010

Place: Adelaide

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 15

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent filed a notice of appearance, submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms V Heath

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Thomson Playford Cutlers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 159 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:
KAZIMIR KOWALSKI
Applicant

AND:
SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED ABN 31 008 414 104
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 MAY 2010

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application by notice of appeal dated 13 October 2009 be dismissed.

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

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 159 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:
KAZIMIR KOWALSKI
Applicant

AND:
SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED ABN 31 008 414 104
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE:

14 MAY 2010

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 14 October 2009, Mr Kazimir Kowalski filed a notice of appeal in which he named the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and AMP Superannuation Limited (ABN 31008 414 104) as respondents. The Tribunal filed a notice of appearance submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court, save and except in relation to costs.
On 30 December 2009, AMP Superannuation Limited (the second respondent) filed a notice of motion seeking an order pursuant to O 20 r 5(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules that the proceeding be dismissed. At the hearing, the second respondent submitted that it relied on O…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kowalski 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

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: [2010] FCA 473
Decision Date: 14 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kowalski v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal involved the applicant appealing against a decision made by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. The applicant sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction over a complaint made under the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth). The central issue before the court was whether the Tribunal's refusal to exercise jurisdiction could be considered a "determination" under section 46 of the Act, which would make the Tribunal's decision subject to appeal.

The court examined the language of section 46 and concluded that the term "determination" was limited to final and ultimate determinations of the substance of a complaint. The court held that a refusal to exercise jurisdiction did not constitute such a final determination, and therefore, it was not appealable under section 46 of the Act. This interpretation was consistent with the legislative intent to confine appeals to substantive resolutions of complaints, rather than procedural decisions such as the refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

The court's reasoning hinged on the precise wording of the statute and the ordinary meaning of the term "determination". Given this interpretation, the court found that the applicant's appeal was not valid under the Act. The court dismissed the application, reaffirming that the scope of appeals under section 46 was restricted to substantive determinations of complaints.

ORDERS:

1. The applicant's application by notice of appeal dated 13 October 2009 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s application by notice of appeal dated 13 October 2009 be dismissed.

Note:

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

The applicant’s “appeal” is an application in the original jurisdiction of this Court. It is not part of a proceeding which is arguably within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is the proceeding. Plainly, it is a purported appeal under s 46 of the Act and neither party has suggested that it can be treated as some other form of proceeding. In those circumstances, I decline the second respondent’s invitation to rule that, having regard to the facts and the provisions of s 14 of the Act, no other form of proceeding would have reasonable prospects of success.Conclusion The order of the Court will be that the applicant’s application by notice of appeal dated 13 October 2009 be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:		Kowalski v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2010] FCA 473
Parties:		KAZIMIR KOWALSKI v SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL and AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED ABN 31 008 414 104
File number:		SAD 159 of 2009
Judge:		BESANKO J
Date of judgment:		14 May 2010
Catchwords:		ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal against decision of Superannuation Complaints Tribunal under s 46 of Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) – whether decision to refuse to exercise jurisdiction amounts to determination under s 46 of Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) Held: appeal dismissed – definition of determination under s 46 of Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) limited to final and ultimate determination of substance of complaint.
Legislation:		Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 14, 37 and 46 Federal Court Rules O 20 r 5, O 54 rr 3, 4,
Cases cited:		Ray v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (2004) 138 FCR 548 Yao v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] FCA 18
Date of hearing:	18 February 2010
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	15
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	The First Respondent filed a notice of appearance, submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Ms V Heath
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Thomson Playford Cutlers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 159 of 2009

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 MAY 2010
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	14 MAY 2010
PLACE:	ADELAIDE