Kristoffersen v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal - [2014] FCAFC 63

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kristoffersen v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2014] FCAFC 63

Citation: Kristoffersen v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2014] FCAFC 63

Appeal from: Kristoffersen v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2013] FCA 951

Parties: KURT KRISTOFFERSEN v SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL, COLONIAL MUTUAL SUPERANNUATION PTY LTD and COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY LTD

File number: QUD 673 of 2013

Judges: DOWSETT, COLLIER AND RANGIAH JJ

Date of judgment: 28 May 2014

Catchwords: SUPERANNUATION – appellant became member of superannuation fund – decisions of trustees of superannuation fund and insurer refusing claim for benefits – Superannuation Complaints Tribunal affirmed decisions of trustee and insurer – appeal against decision of the Tribunal dismissed by primary judge – appellant’s grounds of appeal against primary judge’s decision raise questions of fact, points which were not argued below, and do not otherwise demonstrate appealable error – appeal dismissed

Legislation: Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 14, 14(2), 16, 25, 25(1), 36, 37, 37(3), 46(1)

Cases cited: Board of Trustees of the State Superannuation Scheme v Edington (2011) 119 ALD 472
Canute v Comcare (2006) 226 CLR 535
Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2009) 240 CLR 28
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 83 ALJR 1123
Park v Brothers (2005) 80 ALJR 317
SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189
Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491

Date of hearing: 26 May 2014

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 69

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person

Solicitor for the First Respondent: The first respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs

Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: Mr R C Morton

Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: McInnes Wilson Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 673 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
KURT KRISTOFFERSEN
Appellant

AND:
SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

COLONIAL MUTUAL SUPERANNUATION PTY LTD
Second Respondent

COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY LTD
Third Respondent

JUDGES:

DOWSETT, COLLIER AND RANGIAH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MAY 2014

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 673 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
KURT KRISTOFFERSEN
Appellant

AND:
SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

COLONIAL MUTUAL SUPERANNUATION PTY LTD
Second Respondent

COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY LTD
Third Respondent

JUDGES:

DOWSETT, COLLIER AND RANGIAH JJ

DATE:

28 MAY 2014

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

The appellant, Kurt Kristoffersen, appeals from a judgment of Logan J ([2013] FCA 951) dismissing his appeal from a determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).
The Tribunal had affirmed decisions of the second respondent and the third respondent to reject…

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 Kristoffersen 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: [2014] FCAFC 63
Decision Date: 28 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the primary judge who dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. The appellant had lodged a complaint with the Tribunal regarding the decisions of the trustees of the superannuation fund and the insurer, which had refused his claims for additional income protection benefits and a total and permanent disability benefit. The primary judge dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact, points which were not argued below, and did not demonstrate appealable error.

The legal issues before the court were whether the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact or points which were not argued below, and whether they demonstrated appealable error. The court considered whether the grounds of appeal were within the scope of the appeal provisions of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) and whether the primary judge had correctly exercised his discretion in dismissing the appeal.

The court found that the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact and points which were not argued below, and did not demonstrate appealable error. The court held that the primary judge had correctly exercised his discretion in dismissing the appeal as the grounds of appeal did not demonstrate any error on the part of the Tribunal. The court also found that the appellant had not demonstrated any grounds for the court to interfere with the decision of the primary judge.

The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court held that the primary judge had correctly exercised his discretion in dismissing the appeal and that the grounds of appeal did not demonstrate any error on the part of the Tribunal. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any grounds for the court to interfere with the decision of the primary judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

It is necessary to explain the background to and the procedural history of the claims in order to place the appellant’s grounds of appeal in context. Background and claims history The appellant joined the Colonial Select Corporate Superannuation Fund when he commenced his employment in 2003. The second respondent is the trustee of the fund. The third respondent is an insurer which provided income protection and TPD insurance to members of the fund. The appellant injured his left knee when he fell while pushing a motorbike on 19 October 2003. He injured his knee again and also injured his back when he fell down a flight of stairs at work on 4 December 2003. In May 2005, the appellant made a claim to the insurer for income protection benefits. His claim was initially approved for the period from 3 January 2004 to 24 April 2004. Eventually, on 17 November 2009, the insurer decided to pay the appellant’s income protection claim for a period of two years ending on 2 January 2006. In April 2007, the appellant submitted a claim form for a TPD benefit to the insurer (he claimed to have also made a claim for a TPD benefit in May 2005, but the Tribunal found that he had not done so). The insurer notified the complainant on 1 February 2010 that it had declined its claim for a TPD benefit. In May 2011, the trustee wrote to the appellant notifying him that it had affirmed the decisions of the insurer to pay his income protection claim only until 2 January 2006 and to decline his TPD claim.Proceedings before the Tribunal On 19 February 2009, the appellant lodged a complaint with the Tribunal under s 14 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) that the decisions of the trustee and the insurer to reject his claim for payment of an additional income protection benefit and to reject his claim for a TPD benefit were unfair or unreasonable. The substantive powers of the Tribunal are set out in s 37 of the Act. That section provides, relevantly:(3)On reviewing the decision of a trustee, insurer or other decision-maker that is the subject of, or relevant to, a complaint under section 14, the Tribunal must make a determination in writing:(a) affirming the decision; or(b)remitting the matter to which the decision relates to the trustee, insurer or other decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal; or(c) varying the decision; or(d) setting aside the decision and substituting a decision for the decision so set aside.…(6)The Tribunal must affirm a decision referred to under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the decision, in its operation in relation to:(a) the complainant; and(b) so far as concerns a complaint regarding the payment of a death benefit—any person (other than the complainant, a trustee, insurer or decision-maker) who:(i) has become a party to the complaint; and(ii)has an interest in the death benefit or claims to be, or to be entitled to benefits through, a person having an interest in the death benefit;was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

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.

Citation:	Kristoffersen v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2014] FCAFC 63
Appeal from:	Kristoffersen v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2013] FCA 951
Parties:	KURT KRISTOFFERSEN v SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL, COLONIAL MUTUAL SUPERANNUATION PTY LTD and COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY LTD
File number:	QUD 673 of 2013
Judges:	DOWSETT, COLLIER AND RANGIAH JJ
Date of judgment:	28 May 2014
Catchwords:	SUPERANNUATION – appellant became member of superannuation fund – decisions of trustees of superannuation fund and insurer refusing claim for benefits – Superannuation Complaints Tribunal affirmed decisions of trustee and insurer – appeal against decision of the Tribunal dismissed by primary judge – appellant’s grounds of appeal against primary judge’s decision raise questions of fact, points which were not argued below, and do not otherwise demonstrate appealable error – appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 14, 14(2), 16, 25, 25(1), 36, 37, 37(3), 46(1)
Cases cited:	Board of Trustees of the State Superannuation Scheme v Edington (2011) 119 ALD 472 Canute v Comcare (2006) 226 CLR 535 Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2009) 240 CLR 28 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 83 ALJR 1123 Park v Brothers (2005) 80 ALJR 317 SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189 Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491
Date of hearing:	26 May 2014
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	69
Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	The first respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs
Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents:	Mr R C Morton
Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents:	McInnes Wilson Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 673 of 2013

JUDGES:	DOWSETT, COLLIER AND RANGIAH JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	28 MAY 2014
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGES:	DOWSETT, COLLIER AND RANGIAH JJ
DATE:	28 MAY 2014
PLACE:	BRISBANE