Legal Research
Cases
Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited

Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 26 July 2017 45 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited [2017] NSWSC 987
Hearing dates: 13 July 2017
Date of orders: 26 July 2017
Decision date: 26 July 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
(1) Order that so much of the stay ordered by the Court on 26 May 2016 be lifted so as to permit the first and second defendants in proceedings 2013/232241 to prosecute the amended notice of motion filed on 28 March 2017 and, to the extent necessary, give leave to the said defendants to amend their notice of motion filed 25 August 2014 in those terms.
(2) Of the Court’s own motion, pursuant to s 41(2) of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) appoint the NSW Trustee as manager of so much of the estate of the plaintiff as pertains to the plaintiff’s right, title and interest in proceedings 2013/232241 and in proceedings 2013/244238.
(3) Order that the costs of the amended notice of motion be costs in the cause.
(4) Dismiss without costs the motion filed in Court on 13 July 2017 by the defendants in proceedings 2013/244238.
(5) Liberty to the plaintiff and the defendants in each of proceedings 2013/232241 and proceedings 2013/244238 to apply within 14 days for any variation/amendment to these orders necessary to permit compliance with any relevant superannuation legislation following the disposition of either set of proceedings.
(6) Note the ability of the NSW Trustee to apply for any variation or addition to the orders made today.
(7) Stand the matter over to the Registrar’s List on 23 August 2017 at 9.00am, together with proceedings 2013/2442328, for directions.

Catchwords: MENTAL HEALTH - NSW Trustee and Guardian Act - Protected estate manager - Litigant in person - Appointment of NSW Trustee as manager of so much of the estate as pertains to plaintiff’s right title and interest in ongoing proceedings
Legislation Cited: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW), ss 38, 39, 40, 41, 71
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 7.14, 7.18, Pt 7, Pt 57
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 14, 56, 67
Cases Cited: A v A [2015] NSWSC 1778
Ability One Financial Management Pty Limited v JB by his Tutor AB [2014] NSWSC 245
AGU v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] NSWCA 333
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Evans; Evans v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1742
Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1; [1951] HCA 5
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (1999) 95 FCR 292; [1999] FCA 1151
Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411, (1992)…

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 Mao v AMP Superannuation Limited 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] NSWSC 987
Decision Date: 26 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Mao, the plaintiff, and AMP Superannuation Limited, the defendant. The dispute arose from Mao's mental health issues, which led to concerns about his ability to manage his own financial affairs. Specifically, the case concerned the appointment of a protected estate manager under the Trustee and Guardian Act in New South Wales. Mao was representing himself in the proceedings, which complicated the situation further. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to decide several key legal issues. First, it needed to determine whether Mao's mental health condition was such that it impaired his ability to manage his financial affairs effectively. Secondly, if it was determined that Mao was incapacitated, the court had to decide who should be appointed as his protected estate manager. The court also had to consider whether the New South Wales Trustee should be appointed to manage only the aspects of Mao's estate that related to his ongoing litigation, rather than his entire estate.

The court found that Mao's mental health condition did indeed impair his ability to manage his financial affairs, thereby justifying the appointment of a protected estate manager. Given Mao's status as a litigant in person and the specific nature of his ongoing litigation, the court ruled that the New South Wales Trustee should be appointed to manage only that portion of Mao's estate which pertained to his rights, title, and interest in the current proceedings. The decision was based on the need to balance the protection of Mao's interests with the preservation of his autonomy as much as possible.

The final orders of the court were that the New South Wales Trustee be appointed as the manager of that portion of Mao's estate which related to his ongoing litigation. This decision aimed to ensure that Mao's interests were protected in the specific context of the litigation while respecting his autonomy in other financial matters. The court's ruling provided a nuanced approach to the management of Mao's estate, recognising the complexities of his situation.

Orders