Pascoe v SAS Trustee Corporation

Case [2022] NSWCA 244

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Pascoe v SAS Trustee Corporation [2022] NSWCA 244
Hearing dates: 9 November 2022
Date of orders: 1 December 2022
Decision date: 01 December 2022
Before: Ward P at [1];
Kirk JA at [2];
Basten AJA at [21].
Decision:

(1)   Dismiss the appeal.

(2)   Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.

Catchwords:

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – public sector – police – medical discharge application –powers of State Authorities Superannuation Board delegated to Police Superannuation Advisory Committee – review of Committee’s decision by Board – whether Board had power to redetermine claim – whether Board validly notified claimant of decision

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – obligation to notify claimant of decision – notification contained advice about right of appeal to Industrial Commission – 30 years later Court of Appeal determined the correct forum for an appeal was a workers compensation commissioner – whether notification failed to commence limitation period for appeal to correct tribunal (now the District Court)

Legislation Cited:

Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW), s 310

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 478

Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), Pt 2A, ss 2H, 2J; Pt 4, ss 10, 10B; s 21

Superannuation Administration Act 1987 (NSW), ss 26, 27

Cases Cited:

Bayly v Municipal Council of Sydney (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 149

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 77 ALJR 1088; [2003] HCA 26

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 60 ALD 482; [2000] FCA 63

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1801

Doukmak v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 114 FCR 432; [2001] FCA 1821

Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 162 FCR 299; [2007] FCA 591

Huth v Clarke (1890) 25 QBD 391

Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37

Miles v SAS Trustee Corporation [2017] NSWCA 86

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH (2015) 256 CLR 326; [2015] HCA 40

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39

Piening v Wanless (1968) 117 CLR 498; [1968] HCA 7

R v Unger [1977] 2 NSWLR 990

Re J Wigfall & Sons’ Trade Marks [1919] 1 Ch 52

Salehi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 995

SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles (2018) 92 ALJR 1064; [2018] HCA 55

SAS Trustee Corporation v Rossetti [2018] NSWCA 68

SAS Trustee Corporation v Woollard (2014) 86 NSWLR 367; [2014] NSWCA 75

Schinnerl v Commissioner of Police [1992] NSWCA 224

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 190 FCR 552; [2011] FCAFC 27

Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Dignan [1931] 46 CLR 73; [1931] HCA 34

Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 71 FCR 386; [1997] FCA…

Continue reading Pascoe v SAS Trustee Corporation

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pascoe v SAS Trustee Corporation [2022] NSWCA 244
Case
[2022] NSWCA 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute between Mr. Pascoe and the SAS Trustee Corporation regarding Mr. Pascoe's application for a medical discharge from the police force. The primary issue revolved around the review of a decision made by the Police Superannuation Advisory Committee, which had been delegated powers by the State Authorities Superannuation Board. Mr. Pascoe contended that the Board retained the power to redetermine his claim and questioned whether he had been validly notified of the Board's decision. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the SAS Trustee Corporation, as the successor to the State Authorities Superannuation Board, possessed the power to redetermine Mr. Pascoe's medical discharge claim. Secondly, the Court had to assess whether the notification provided to Mr. Pascoe regarding the decision was legally sufficient, particularly in light of subsequent judicial pronouncements concerning the correct forum for appealing such decisions. This involved examining whether the notification, which advised an appeal to the Industrial Commission, had effectively commenced the limitation period for an appeal to the correct tribunal, now the District Court.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the SAS Trustee Corporation did not have the power to redetermine the claim. It held that the Board's delegation of powers to the Committee meant that the Committee's decision was, in effect, the Board's decision, and the Board's subsequent review was limited to the scope of that delegation. Furthermore, the Court determined that the notification provided to Mr. Pascoe was valid and sufficient to commence the limitation period for an appeal. The Court applied principles of administrative law concerning the finality of decisions and the commencement of appeal periods, concluding that the notification, despite the subsequent clarification of appeal forums, had fulfilled its legal purpose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered that Mr. Pascoe pay the respondent's costs in the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the appeal.

(2) Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.

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.