Re: CHRISTINE PERRETT And: COMMISSIONER FOR SUPERANNUATION No. V G196 of 1990 FED No. 361 Superannuation 29 FCR 581/13 AAR 440 23 ALD 257 (1991) 40 IR 169
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Wilcox(1), Burchett(1) and Ryan(1) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Superannuation - Certificate by medical practitioner that employee suffering from psoriasis - Employee subsequently retired on ground of invalidity, the relevant invalidity being occasioned by psoriatic arthritis - Whether psoriatic arthritis was "connected with" psoriasis, there being no known causal connection between the two conditions - Whether the words "connected with" postulate a causal relationship - Nature of connection between two conditions.
Counsel for the Applicant: R. Gorton, QC and T. Tobin
Solicitors for the Applicant: Slater and Gordon
Counsel for the Respondent: J. Karkar, QC and R. Tracey
Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
ORDER
The appeal be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. (See also Order 37 rule 2(3)).
JUDGE1
This is an application by way of appeal pursuant to s.44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 against a decision of the Tribunal affirming a decision of the Commissioner for Superannuation concerning the operation of s.66(2) of the Superannuation Act 1976. Normally, the appeal would have been heard by a single Judge of the Court but the appellant wished to call into question aspects of a decision made by Jenkinson J. at an earlier stage of the dispute between the parties: see Commissioner for Superannuation v Perrett (1989) 23 FCR 425. Accordingly, Northrop J. directed that the matter be listed before a Full Court.
The background facts
The appellant, Christine Perrett, was born in 1948. Since the age of about 15 years she has suffered from a skin condition which was diagnosed, some years after its first appearance, as psoriasis. In 1969, Mrs Perrett joined the Postmaster General's Department, as it then was, as a telephonist. She received a permanent appointment in the Department in 1974. In January 1975 Mrs Perrett underwent a medical examination for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1922. In his report of the medical examination, the examining medical officer referred to her psoriasis but nonetheless recommended that she be accepted for the Provident Account established under that Act.
In 1976 the earlier Act was replaced by the Superannuation Act 1976. The new Act conferred benefits on those persons who fell within its definition of "eligible employee". They included Mrs Perrett: see paras.(a) and (b) of the definition contained in s.3.
Section 16 of the 1976 Act relates to medical examinations and benefit classification certificates. It authorises the Commissioner for Superannuation to require a person who proposes to become, or who becomes, an eligible employee to undergo such medical examination or examinations as the Commissioner determines. Subsection (4) provides:
"(4) The Commissioner shall consider the report or reports, and such other matters (if any) as…
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.
Continue reading Perrett v Commissioner for Superannuation
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Perrett, C. v. Commissioner for Superannuation [1991] FCA 361 (29 FCR 581; 13 AAR 440; 23 ALD 257; (1991) 40 IR 169)
Case
[1991] FCA 361
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Perrett v Commissioner for Superannuation, the primary dispute centred around the interpretation of superannuation laws concerning the eligibility of a retirement benefit based on invalidity. The parties involved were Perrett, the appellant, and the Commissioner for Superannuation, the respondent. The case was adjudicated in the Federal Court of Australia, where the appellant sought to challenge the Commissioner's decision that his invalidity retirement benefit was not payable because his condition, psoriatic arthritis, was not "connected with" his psoriasis, as required by the relevant statutory provisions.
The court was tasked with determining the legal meaning of the phrase "connected with" in the context of superannuation laws. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the term "connected with" implied a causal relationship between the conditions of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, or if a less stringent connection was sufficient. This interpretation was crucial because, if no causal relationship existed between the two conditions, the appellant's claim for invalidity retirement benefits would not be upheld. The court also had to consider the broader implications of the connection requirement on the administration of superannuation laws and the potential for arbitrary exclusion of benefits.
The court ruled that the phrase "connected with" in the superannuation context did not necessarily require a direct causal link between the conditions but rather a meaningful connection that was not arbitrary. The court held that psoriatic arthritis was indeed connected with psoriasis in a way that satisfied the statutory requirement, as it was a serious condition that arose from the same underlying disease process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision that the appellant's invalidity retirement benefit was not payable. The court's decision emphasised the importance of interpreting statutory language in its proper context to ensure fairness and consistency in the application of superannuation laws.
No further orders were necessary beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The court's ruling clarified the legal criteria for determining the connection between medical conditions for superannuation purposes, providing guidance for future cases involving similar issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. (See also Order 37 rule 2(3)).