Mann v United Super Pty Ltd - [2004] NSWSC 1093

CITATION: Mann v United Super Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWSC 1093

HEARING DATE(S): 21/10/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Gzell J

DECISION: Claim for interest alone sustainable under inherent jurisdication in equity to compensate for breach of trust. Action statute-barred.

CATCHWORDS: INTEREST - Whether Equitable Relief or Fiduciary Relationship - Claim to total and permanent disablement under superannuation fund rejected - Payment subsequently made by trustee - Whether claim for interest as equitable compensation for alleged breach of trust by initial rejection sustainable - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - Trusts and Deceased Estates - Action for interest - Incapacity and rejection of claim more than six years before action brought - Whether statute-barred

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970
Limitation Act 1969

CASES CITED: London, Chatham & Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway Co [1893] AC 429
Norwest Refrigeration Services Pty Ltd v Bain Dawes (WA) Pty Ltd (1983-1984) 157 CLR 149
Hungerfords v Walker (1988-1989) 171 CLR 125
Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 QB 373
US Surgical Corporation v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd (1982) 2 NSWLR 766
Catt v Marac Australia Ltd (1986) 9 NSWLR 639
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 945
Armstrong v East West Airlines (Operations) Ltd, unreported, NSWSC, 3 February 1994
Cigna Insurance Asia Pacific Ltd v Packer (2001) 11 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-492

PARTIES :
Tony Colin Mann - Plaintiff
United Super Pty Ltd - 1st Defendant
The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd - 2nd Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3226/04

COUNSEL: Mr G Beauchamp - Plaintiff
Mr M Condon - 1st Defendant
Mr R Cavanagh - 2nd Defendant

SOLICITORS: Firths The Compensation Lawyers
Middletons
TurksLegal

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

GZELL J

THURSDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2004

ANOR

Introduction

1 The plaintiff, Tony Colin Mann, was a member of a superannuation fund of which the first defendant, United Super Pty Ltd, was trustee. It entered into an insurance policy covering its liabilities under the fund with the second defendant, The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd. Mr Mann made a claim on the trustee that he was totally and permanently disabled. His claim was rejected. Years later he repeated his claim and he received a lump sum payment out of the fund. His suit was for interest on that amount from the date his claim was first refused.

Can a claim for interest alone be sustained?

2 In London, Chatham & Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway Co [1893] AC 429 the House of Lords confirmed that at common law an award of interest as compensation for late payment of damages was not open. That proposition was accepted by the High Court in Norwest Refrigeration Services Pty Ltd v Bain Dawes (WA) Pty Ltd (1983-1984) 157 CLR 149 at 162.

3 In Hungerfords v Walker (1988-1989) 171 CLR 125 the High Court declined to follow London, Chatham holding that damage from the loss of use of money…

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 Mann v United Super Pty Ltd 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: [2004] NSWSC 1093
Decision Date: 18 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mann v United Super Pty Ltd involved a claim for interest as equitable compensation for an alleged breach of trust by the defendant, United Super Pty Ltd, in relation to a superannuation fund. The plaintiff, Mann, sought to recover interest for the period during which his claim for total and permanent disablement was rejected, before it was eventually paid by the trustee. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues in this case were whether the plaintiff could claim interest as equitable compensation for the alleged breach of trust, and whether the action for interest was statute-barred due to the length of time that had elapsed since the initial rejection of the claim.

The court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties, considering whether it was a fiduciary relationship or if equitable relief was available in this context. The court held that while the relationship was fiduciary in nature, the claim for interest as equitable compensation was not sustainable. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred because the rejection of the claim for total and permanent disablement occurred more than six years before the action was brought. This was despite the subsequent payment of the claim by the trustee. The court concluded that the statutory limitation period had expired, and thus, the claim for interest was precluded by the operation of the statute of limitations.

The court's decision was based on the principle that equitable compensation is not available for breaches of trust where the breach has been remedied, and the court found that the subsequent payment by the trustee effectively remedied the breach. The court also found that the statutory limitation period had run, barring the claim for interest. The final orders of the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for interest, finding that it was statute-barred and not sustainable as equitable compensation.

Orders