Re Ansett Australia Flight Engineers Superannuation Plan - [2004] VSC 18

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL LIST

No. 2025 of 2003
F.5538

ANSETT AUSTRALIA FLIGHT ENGINEERS SUPERANNUATION PLAN PTY LTD (ACN 065 589 979) (as trustee of the Ansett Australia Flight Engineers Superannuation Plan)	Plaintiff
v
ANSETT AUSTRALIA LIMITED (under Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 004 209 410) and Others	Defendants

_____________________

No. 2030 of 2003
F.5544

ANSETT AUSTRALIA LIMITED (under Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 004 209 410) and Others	Plaintiffs
v
ANSETT AUSTRALIA FLIGHT ENGINEERS SUPERANNUATION PLAN PTY LTD (ACN 065 589 979)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 February 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 February 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Ansett Australia Flight Engineers Superannuation Plan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 18

---

Practice and Procedure – Compromise – Trusts – Approval where conflict of interest in Trustee – Approval where representative order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr Michael W. Wise	Minter Ellison
For the First and Second Defendants	Mr J.G. Judd QC	Arnold Bloch Liebler
For the Third to Seventh Defendants	Mr Simon E. Marks with Ms P. Neskovcin	Turkslegal
For the Eighth Defendant	Mr Justin Graham	Hall & Wilcox
For the Ninth Defendant	Mr David J. O'Callaghan SC	Logie-Smith Lanyon
For the Tenth Defendant	No Appearance
For the Eleventh Defendant	Mr Russell L. Moore	Griffin Law Firm

HIS HONOUR:

The Ansett Flight Engineers Superannuation Plan was established in the 1940s. The early trust documents are not now available and it is agreed by the parties to this litigation that their rights are presently governed by a Trust Deed dated 21 June 1979 amended twice in 1990 and further amended in 1992 and 1994, and by rules made in 1990 effective from 1 January 1987. Following the collapse of Ansett Australia Limited ("Ansett") in September 2001 and its entry into a Deed of Company Arrangement) dated 2 May 2002, the employment of its employees was terminated and it is desired to wind up the Plan and to distribute the funds to those entitled. The amount of the fund after payment of outstanding liabilities including the costs of the litigation is estimated at approximately $1.7M. Doubts and difficulties have arisen as to the entitlements to this fund and the Trustee, Ansett Australia Flight Engineers Superannuation Pty Ltd ("the Trustee") has commenced proceeding No. 2025 of 2003 (F.5538) to determine these matters. Those with a possible claim to the fund have been joined as defendants to this proceeding:

·     Ansett as principal employer for the Plan and a party to the Trust Deeds is the firstnamed defendant.
·     Mark Francis Xavier Mentha and Mark Anthony Korda as former administrators of Ansett and the administrators of the Deed of Company Arrangement are the secondnamed defendant.
·     Peter G. Boersen, Michael J. Horneman, James M. Hall, Clement J. Stewart, Robert L. Douglass and Louis Kovacs were employees of Ansett at the time of its collapse and are defined benefit members…

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 Re Ansett Australia Flight Engineers Superannuation Plan 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: [2004] VSC 18
Decision Date: 20 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Ansett Australia Flight Engineers Superannuation Plan, the parties involved were the trustee of the superannuation fund, Ansett Australia, and various beneficiaries of the fund. The dispute arose from a proposed compromise agreement concerning the management and distribution of the fund's assets. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the compromise agreement should be approved, particularly given the conflict of interest of the trustee, and whether the court should make a representative order concerning the beneficiaries of the fund. The court needed to balance the interests of the beneficiaries against the potential conflict of interest and the procedural fairness of the compromise process.

The court found that, despite the conflict of interest, the compromise agreement was fair and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The court also determined that a representative order was appropriate given the large number of beneficiaries and the complexity of the dispute. The court approved the compromise agreement and ordered the trustee to implement it, taking into account the interests of all beneficiaries. The court's decision emphasised the importance of protecting the interests of beneficiaries in superannuation funds and ensuring that any compromise agreements are fair and transparent.

Orders