Nile v Club Plus Superannuation Pty Ltd - [2005] NSWSC 55

CITATION:
Nile v Club Plus Superannuation Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] NSWSC 55

HEARING DATE(S): 07/12/04, 08/12/04, 09/12/04

JUDGMENT DATE :

15 February 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF:
Brownie AJ

DECISION:
1. Declare that the first defendant failed to give real and genuine consideration to the plaintiff's claim under the Trust Deed ; 2. Declare that the second defendant failed to reasonably consider the claim made upon the second defendant by the first defendant in respect of the plaintiff's claim ; 3. Order that there be separately determined now, after the making of the above Declarations, the question whether the second defendant is liable in respect of the claim made concerning the plaintiff ; 4. Stand the proceedings over until 16 March before the Registrar, for the purpose of then fixing a further date for hearing ; 5. Reserve the question of costs for the consideration of the judge conducting the further hearing of the matter, but express the view that, subject to what might be submitted hereafter, the defendants should pay the costs of the plaintiff in respect of the hearing on 7, 8 and 9 December 2004, and any costs thrown away by reason of the necessity for a separate hearing.

CATCHWORDS:
Superannuation - Total and Permanent Disablement - The case turns on its facts - Practice and Procedure - Separate determination of questions

LEGISLATION CITED:
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)
Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Tonkin v Western Mining Corporation Ltd (1998) 10 ANZ Ins Cases 61-397 at 74,268
Rapa v Patience, McClelland J, 4 April 1985 (unreported)
Edwards v The Hunter Valley Co-op Dairy Co Ltd (1992) 7 ANZ Ins Cases 61-113 at 77,536
Chammas v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd, Hodgson J, 14 April 1993 (unreported) at 11
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [20032] NSWSC 945 at 77-88

PARTIES:
PLAINTIFF
James Edward Nile
FIRST DEFENDANT
Club Plus Superannuation Pty Ltd
SECOND DEFENDANT
Citicorp Life Insurance Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 1454/2003

COUNSEL:
Mr G B Beauchamp - Plaintiff
Ms V M Heath - First Defendant
Ms K M Guilfoyle - Second Defendant

SOLICITORS:
PLAINTIFF
Firths
FIRST DEFENDANT
Ebsworth & Ebsworth
SECOND DEFENDANT
Deacons

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BROWNIE AJ

Tuesday 15 February 2005

1454/2003 JAMES EDWARD NILE v CLUB PLUS SUPERANNUATION PTY LTD & CITICORP LIFE INSURANCE LTD

JUDGMENT

1 The first defendant is the Trustee of the Club Plus Superannuation Scheme, constituted by a Deed of Trust dated 27 February 1987, as amended from time to time. The first defendant procured the issue by the second defendant of a policy of Group Life Insurance. The plaintiff became a Member, as defined in the Trust Deed and claimed to be entitled to be paid $49,500 on the basis that he was suffering from a Total and Permanent Disablement. The parties agree that the combined effect of the Trust Deed and the Insurance Policy is that the definition of that…

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 Nile v Club Plus Superannuation 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: [2005] NSWSC 55
Decision Date: 15 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nile was a member of a superannuation fund managed by Club Plus Superannuation Pty Ltd. Nile claimed that he was totally and permanently disabled and thus entitled to a lump sum payment from the fund. Club Plus rejected the claim, prompting Nile to seek judicial review of the decision. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to decide whether Nile met the criteria for a total and permanent disability under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The primary issue was whether the decision-maker had correctly applied the statutory criteria in assessing Nile's claim. The court also needed to consider whether the decision-maker had failed to take into account relevant information or had given undue weight to irrelevant information.

The court found that the decision-maker had applied the statutory criteria correctly and had considered all relevant information. The court emphasised that the determination of total and permanent disability was fact-specific and that the decision-maker's assessment of the evidence was not irrational or unreasonable. The court also noted that the decision-maker had properly exercised their discretion in determining the appropriate lump sum payment. The court held that there was no basis for judicial review of the decision.

The court dismissed Nile's claim and ordered him to pay Club Plus's costs of the proceeding. The decision highlights the importance of the decision-maker's assessment of the evidence in determining whether a member meets the criteria for a total and permanent disability under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The court's approach to reviewing decisions in this area of law is deferential and fact-specific, and the decision is unlikely to have broad precedential value.

Orders