Machin v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme

The appeal is brought pursuant to s 46 of the Complaints Act, which provides that a party may appeal to the Federal Court from a determination of the Tribunal on a question of law. The applicant submits that the Tribunal majority, in affirming the decision of the Board, misconstrued the relevant provisions of the Deed and failed to address the right questions, and instead addressed the wrong questions or took into account irrelevant considerations. The questions of law identified in the notice of appeal include whether the Tribunal ought to have but failed to address the decision complained of and whether the Tribunal majority erred in its construction and application of relevant provisions of the Deed.The role, jurisdiction and obligations of the Tribunal under the Complaints Act have been analysed in a number of decisions. The authorities indicate that the Tribunal’s function is to conduct a “limited merits review” in which it steps into the shoes of the trustee and addresses the actual trustee decision de novo, based on all of the information before it. The Tribunal’s task is to form a view, from the perspective of the trustee, as to whether the decision of the trustee was unfair or unreasonable. The conformity of the decision with the governing rules or the terms of the policy is a relevant consideration in determining whether a decision was unfair or unreasonable. The Tribunal must take into account the relevant definitions in the Deed and it is not the role of the medical practitioners to form an opinion whether the member satisfied the definitions of TPD or PPD under the Deed. The Tribunal is required to ask whether the decision of the trustee was fair and reasonable in its operation on the complainant in the circumstances.In my opinion, the Tribunal majority erred as the applicant alleged by: (a) failing to identify and address itself to the Board’s decision the subject of the complaint; (b) failing to address itself to the question whether the Board’s decision, in its operation in relation to the applicant, was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances; (c) failing to address itself to the question whether the Board could have fairly and reasonably determined that the applicant was not entitled to a PPD benefit; (d) endorsing and applying an erroneous construction of ss 4, 32, 46 and 49 of the Deed; and (e) taking into account irrelevant matters or questions, or applying incorrect criteria to the determination of eligibility for benefits, including a TPD benefit, under the Deed. The appeal should be allowed. The determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal dated 13 January 2010 be set aside. The matter be remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted for reconsideration according to law. The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal.