Millman v South Australian Superannuation Board - [2018] SADC 45

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
MILLMAN v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN SUPERANNUATION BOARD
[2018] SADC 45
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
8 May 2018
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS - GENERALLY
The appellant was denied a special police disability pension on the ground that his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was not demonstrated to result from criminal conduct directed at him, and on the ground that his exposure to child sexual abuse during the course of his duties as a Detective, the PTSD 'was not a direct and immediate result' of that exposure.
Held:
1. The Board erred insofar that there was no relevant criminal conduct, but that conduct did not result in the PTSD. This decision is therefore affirmed.
2. The Board erred in concluding that the PTSD could not be a 'direct and immediate result' of exposure to child pornographic material by concluding that the condition 'built up over time'. The phrase 'direct and immediate' is not time related.
3. Appeal upheld, decision of the Board rescinded and remitted for further consideration.
Southern State Superannuation Act 2009 (SA) s 3, s , s 18(3), s 18(4) s 22(3), s 22(3)(b), s 25, s 30, s 30(2)(e); Southern State Superannuation Regulations 2009 (SA) reg 38A(6); District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42B, s 42C, s 42E(1), s 42F, s 42F(c); District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) DCR 279A(2); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19(2), s 63, s 63A, s 63B, s 63C(1)(2a)(a), s 85(2), s 85(3); Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v McMurray (2017) 128 SASR 1; R v Oliver [2003] 1 Cr App R 463; R v Ryan [2012] SASCFC 136; Baldwin v Police [2007] SASC 214; R v Reilly [2013] SASCFC 106; R v Ohmer [2011] SASCFC 44; R v HIll [2011] SASR 588; Insurance Commissioner of Western Australia v Container Handlers Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 89; Lasermax Engineering Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (2005) 13 ANZ INS CAS 61-643; Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837; March v E & MH Stranmare Pty Limited (1991) 171 CLR 506; Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467; Nicholson v Walker & Wolf (1979) 21 SASR 481; Jaensch v Coffee (1984) 155 CLR 549; Garla v Preston (1991) 172 CLR 243; Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434; Neindorf v Junkovic (2005) 80 ALJR 341; Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 12 ALR 33; Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; American Dairy Queen (QLD) Pty Ltd v Blue Rio Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 677, referred to.
State Government Insurance Commission v Sinfein Pty Ltd (1996) 15 WAR 434; Insurance Commissioner of Western Australia v Container Handlers Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 89, applied.

MILLMAN v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN SUPERANNUATION BOARD
[2018] SADC 45
Contents
The proceedings
Underlying facts
Postings with…

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 Millman v South Australian Superannuation Board 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: [2018] SADC 45
Decision Date: 8 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Millman v South Australian Superannuation Board, the plaintiff, Mr Millman, sought judicial review of a decision made by the South Australian Superannuation Board. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of superannuation laws, specifically whether the Board's decision to refuse the plaintiff's application for a benefit was lawful and justifiable. The case was heard in the South Australian Supreme Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Board had acted beyond its powers or in a manner that was unreasonable, as defined by the principles of administrative law. The court was required to examine whether the Board's decision was based on an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations, or was otherwise irrational. The plaintiff argued that the Board had misinterpreted the relevant legislation and failed to consider pertinent evidence, thereby making a decision that was unjust and beyond its authority.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the Board's decision was indeed flawed. It found that the Board had not correctly applied the statutory criteria, which led to an unjust outcome. The court emphasised that the Board must adhere strictly to the legislative framework and ensure that all relevant considerations are appropriately weighed. The Board's failure to do so rendered its decision unlawful. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff's application for judicial review and quashed the Board's decision.

As a result of the court's decision, the matter was remitted back to the South Australian Superannuation Board for reconsideration in accordance with the principles outlined in the judgment. The Board was instructed to reassess Mr Millman's application, taking into account all relevant factors and the correct interpretation of the legislation.

Orders