Mackie v SAS Trustee Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 49 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mackie v SAS Trustee Corporation [2017] NSWDC 232
Hearing dates: 10 – 13, 20 April 2017
Date of orders: 20 April 2017
Decision date: 20 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Set aside the decision of the Defendant made on 25 February 2016 and determine that the Plaintiff’s pension allowance be increased from 72.75% at the date of her medical discharge to 81.94%.

 

Determination that that pension become payable from 16 March 2012.

 Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs.
Catchwords: POLICE SUPERANNUATION – Application to increase superannuation entitlement – when should pension increase commence?
Legislation Cited: Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906
Cases Cited: Carswell v SAS Trustee Corporation [2014] NSWDC 47
Daley v SASTC [2015] NSWDC 183; (2015) 20 DCLR(NSW) 362
Daley v SASTC [2016] NSWCA 111
Daley v SASTC (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 285
Lembcke v SASTC [2003] NSWCA 136; (2003) 56 NSWLR 736; (2003) 25 NSWCCR 464
Moss v SASTC (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 287
Swift v SASTC [2010] NSWCA 182
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Virginia Suzanne Mackie (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
P O’Rourke (Plaintiff)
T Ower (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Walter Madden Jenkins (Plaintiff)
Lorianna Ower (Defendant)
File Number(s): RJ 374/16
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff is a former senior sergeant of police. She was attested as a probationary constable of police on 7 November 1986 and thereupon became a contributor to the Police Superannuation Fund established under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 ("the Act"). She ceased her work as a senior sergeant of police on 9 November 2009. On 23 February 2012, the Police Superannuation Advisory Committee (PSAC) determined that the plaintiff was incapable of discharging the duties of her office on account of these infirmities:

"Major depressive disorder of moderate severity;

Lumbar spondylosis;

Chronic soft tissue injuries to the neck, thoracic spine, lumbar spine and right knee".

On 6 March 2012, the Commissioner of Police, by his delegate, determined that each of those conditions was caused by the plaintiff’s having been hurt on duty. In essence, the Commissioner of Police determined that the injury to the plaintiff's right knee was caused on 12 March 1993, the injury to her neck was caused on 3 May 1995, the injury to her back was caused by incidents on 11 June 1997 and 15 January 2006, and that the psychiatric or psychological infirmity was caused by a disease of gradual process which attracted a deemed date of injury of 9 December 2009, the day on which the plaintiff last performed at work as a senior sergeant of police. On 15 March 2012, the plaintiff was medically discharged from the New South Wales Police Force. On the following day, she commenced to receive a superannuation allowance pursuant to s 10(1A)(a) of the Act.

  1. On 25 August 2015, the plaintiff, by her solicitors, sent to the defendant an application form for an increase in her hurt on duty superannuation allowance, or pension,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mackie v SAS Trustee Corporation 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
[2017] NSWDC 232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mackie v SAS Trustee Corporation, the Federal Court was called upon to decide on a dispute regarding a police officer's superannuation entitlement. The plaintiff, a former member of the South Australian Police, sought an increase in her superannuation benefits. The defendant, the SAS Trustee Corporation, was responsible for managing the police superannuation fund. The court was tasked with determining the correct percentage of the pension allowance and the appropriate commencement date for this increased pension.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Police Superannuation Act 1993 (Cth) and associated regulations. The primary question was whether the plaintiff's pension allowance should be increased to reflect a full disability pension and, if so, when this increase should commence. The court needed to consider statutory provisions, policy documents, and the specific circumstances of the plaintiff's service and medical discharge.

In its judgment, the Federal Court held that the plaintiff's pension allowance should indeed be increased from 72.75% to 81.94%. The court found that the increase should be effective from 16 March 2012, the date of the plaintiff's medical discharge. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the policy documents governing police superannuation. The court found that the defendant's decision to set the commencement date at a later time was not supported by the statutory framework and was thus set aside. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements and policy guidelines in such matters.

Consequently, the court ordered that the defendant's decision made on 25 February 2016 be set aside and that the plaintiff's pension allowance be increased from 72.75% to 81.94%. The court further determined that this increased pension should become payable from 16 March 2012. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Set aside the decision of the Defendant made on 25 February 2016 and determine that the Plaintiff’s pension allowance be increased from 72.75% at the date of her medical discharge to 81.94%.

Determination that that pension become payable from 16 March 2012.

Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs.

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.