Legal Research
Cases
Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation

Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation

Link copied

Case Copied 4 May 2017 68 min read

Contents

On this page

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation [2017] NSWCA 86
Hearing dates: 28 March 2017
Decision date: 04 May 2017
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Sackville AJA at [14]
Schmidt J at [97]
Decision:
1.    Appeal allowed.
2.    Remit the matter to the District Court in its compensation jurisdiction for determination in accordance with the decision of this Court.
3.    The respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Catchwords: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – entitlement to additional superannuation allowances payable under s 10(1A) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – former member of the police force partially incapacitated for non-police work – whether additional allowance of 12.25 per cent payable under s 10(1A)(b) requires incapacity to be caused by the member’s original “hurt on duty” infirmity that led to discharge from the police force – whether member’s construction anomalous or leads to “absurd” results – whether second reading speech of assistance
Legislation Cited:
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 142G, 142M, 142N
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 34(1), 35(2)(a), 35(3)
Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 14(1)
Police Regulation (Superannuation and Appeals) Amendment Act 1979 (NSW), Sch 1 (8), (10)
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 1(2), 3, 4, 5(1), 7, 7AA, 8(1), 10, 10B, 14, 21, Pt 4 Div 2, Div 3
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Amendment Act 1985 (NSW), Sch 1 [1], [3]
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Amendment Act 1987 (NSW), Sch 4 [2]
Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW), s 88
Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (NSW), Sch 1 cl 1.2 [8]
Workers Compensation Act 1926 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Police Regulation (Superannuation and Appeals) Amendment Bill 1979 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Carr v State of Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138; [2007] HCA 47
Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378; [2012] HCA 56
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 248 CLR 619; [2013] HCA 36
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; [1981] HCA 26
Harrison v Melhem (2008) 72 NSWLR 380; [2008] NSWCA 67
Lacey v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10
Lembcke v SAS Trustee Corporation (2003) 56 NSWLR 736; [2003] NSWCA 136
Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation [2010] NSWIRComm 69
Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation [2011] NSWIR Comm 15; 206 IR 164
Miles v SASTC [2016] NSWDC 56; 22 DCLR(NSW) 223
Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529; [2006] HCA 11
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Re Goodyear Australia Ltd [2002] NSWSC 53; 167 FLR 1
SAS Trustee Corporation v Cox [2011] NSWCA 408; 285 ALR 623
SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard (2014) 86 NSWLR 367; [2014]…

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 Miles 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] NSWCA 86
Decision Date: 04 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation* concerned the entitlement of a former police officer to additional superannuation allowances under section 10(1A) of the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW). The appellant, who had been discharged from the police force due to partial incapacity for police work, sought to claim an additional allowance of 12.25 per cent. The core dispute revolved around whether this specific allowance, as provided for in section 10(1A)(b), required the incapacity to be a direct consequence of the original "hurt on duty" that led to his discharge. The matter was heard by Payne JA, Sackville AJA, and Schmidt J in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, it had to interpret section 10(1A)(b) of the Act to ascertain whether the additional 12.25 per cent allowance was contingent upon the member's current incapacity being caused by the same "hurt on duty" infirmity that necessitated their retirement from the police force. Secondly, the Court considered whether the appellant's interpretation of the provision would lead to anomalous or absurd results, and whether the Second Reading Speech for the relevant amending legislation could be used as an aid to construction.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's construction of section 10(1A)(b) was correct. The reasoning focused on a textual analysis of the provision, which did not impose a requirement that the incapacity be caused by the original "hurt on duty". The Court concluded that the statutory language did not support the narrower interpretation advanced by the respondent. The Court found that the appellant's construction did not lead to absurd results and that the Second Reading Speech, while not determinative, supported the broader interpretation of the entitlement. Consequently, the Court remitted the matter to the District Court for determination in accordance with its decision and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Remit the matter to the District Court in its compensation jurisdiction for determination in accordance with the decision of this Court.

3. The respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation [2017] NSWCA 86
Hearing dates:	28 March 2017
Decision date:	04 May 2017
Before:	Payne JA at [1] Sackville AJA at [14] Schmidt J at [97]
Decision:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Remit the matter to the District Court in its compensation jurisdiction for determination in accordance with the decision of this Court. 3. The respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
Catchwords:	STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – entitlement to additional superannuation allowances payable under s 10(1A) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) – former member of the police force partially incapacitated for non-police work – whether additional allowance of 12.25 per cent payable under s 10(1A)(b) requires incapacity to be caused by the member’s original “hurt on duty” infirmity that led to discharge from the police force – whether member’s construction anomalous or leads to “absurd” results – whether second reading speech of assistance
Legislation Cited:	District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 142G, 142M, 142N Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 34(1), 35(2)(a), 35(3) Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 14(1) Police Regulation (Superannuation and Appeals) Amendment Act 1979 (NSW), Sch 1 (8), (10) Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 1(2), 3, 4, 5(1), 7, 7AA, 8(1), 10, 10B, 14, 21, Pt 4 Div 2, Div 3 Police Regulation (Superannuation) Amendment Act 1985 (NSW), Sch 1 [1], [3] Police Regulation (Superannuation) Amendment Act 1987 (NSW), Sch 4 [2] Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW), s 88 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (NSW), Sch 1 cl 1.2 [8] Workers Compensation Act 1926 (NSW) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) Police Regulation (Superannuation and Appeals) Amendment Bill 1979 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41 Carr v State of Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138; [2007] HCA 47 Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378; [2012] HCA 56 Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 248 CLR 619; [2013] HCA 36 Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; [1981] HCA 26 Harrison v Melhem (2008) 72 NSWLR 380; [2008] NSWCA 67 Lacey v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10 Lembcke v SAS Trustee Corporation (2003) 56 NSWLR 736; [2003] NSWCA 136 Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation [2010] NSWIRComm 69 Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation [2011] NSWIR Comm 15; 206 IR 164 Miles v SASTC [2016] NSWDC 56; 22 DCLR(NSW) 223 Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529; [2006] HCA 11 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 Re Goodyear Australia Ltd [2002] NSWSC 53; 167 FLR 1 SAS Trustee Corporation v Cox [2011] NSWCA 408; 285 ALR 623 SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard (2014) 86 NSWLR 367; [2014]…