Re Rentis Pty Ltd - [2023] QSC 252

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Rentis Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 252

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application by RENTIS PTY LTD ACN 070 419 975 as trustee for the ROBERT STANNETT SUPERANNUATION FUND

PARTIES:

RENTIS PTY LTD ACN 070 419 975

(applicant)

FILE NO:

12809 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2023 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2023

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

The Court declares that:

1. The document entitled ‘Binding Death Benefit Nomination’ executed by Robert John Stannett (Member), a member of the Robert Stannett Superannuation Fund (Fund) by his enduring attorney Peter James Stannett and dated 17 May 2022 (the 2022 BDBN) constitutes an effective binding nomination of the payment of the Member’s benefit made in accordance with clause 19.2 of the rules of the Fund as set out in the Deed of Variation executed 24 May 2019 (2019 Deed), notwithstanding that it is executed by the Member by his enduring attorney, and the Applicant must, in accordance with clause 19.3 of the 2019 Deed, pay all death benefits payable in respect of the Member in accordance with the 2022 BDBN.

The Court orders that:

2. The Applicant’s costs and the costs of Kylie Michelle Stannett of and incidental to this application be paid out of the Fund on an indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

SUPERANNUATION – BENEFITS – MATTERS AFFECTING ENTITLEMENT TO AND PAYMENT OF – OTHER - where the member of a self-managed superannuation fund made a binding death benefit nomination (“BDBN”) in favour of his wife and children - where the member gave an enduring power of attorney (“EPA”) appointing his wife and brother - where the member lost capacity to make personal and financial decisions - where the member’s wife died, and the surviving attorney executed a third and fourth BDBN - where the EPA expressly authorised the attorney to renew any BDBN made - whether the attorney had the power to make the BDBN pursuant to powers given in the EPA - whether the later BDBN validly replaced the earlier BDBNs

CONTRACTS – PARTICULAR PARTIES – PRINCIPAL AND AGENT – AUTHORITY OF AGENTS – POWERS OF ATTORNEY – EXTENT OF AUTHORITY UNDER PARTICULAR POWERS - where the member of a self-managed superannuation fund made a binding death benefit nomination (“BDBN”) in favour of his wife and children - where the member gave an enduring power of attorney (“EPA”) appointing his wife and brother - where the member lost capacity to make personal and financial decisions - where the member’s wife died, and the surviving attorney executed a third and fourth BDBN - where the EPA expressly authorised the attorney to renew any BDBN made - whether the attorney had the power to make the BDBN pursuant to powers given in the EPA - whether the later BDBN validly replaced the earlier BDBNs

Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld)

Re Narumon [2019] 2 Qd R 247, cited
Spina…

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 Re Rentis Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Rentis Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 252
Case: [2023] QSC 252
Decision Date: 23 October 2023 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Rentis Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding the validity of a binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) executed by Robert John Stannett (the Member) in favour of his wife and children, and subsequently executed by his attorney, Peter James Stannett, after the Member lost capacity. The Member had previously made a binding death benefit nomination and an enduring power of attorney (EPA) appointing his wife and brother. Upon the Member's incapacity and the death of his wife, the surviving attorney executed new BDBNs. The court had to determine whether the attorney had the authority to execute the new BDBNs under the terms of the EPA and whether these new BDBNs validly replaced the earlier ones.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were the interpretation of the powers granted in the EPA and the validity of the BDBNs executed by the attorney. The court examined whether the EPA expressly authorised the attorney to renew any BDBN made by the Member and whether the execution of the new BDBNs by the attorney was within the scope of the powers granted in the EPA. The court also considered whether the new BDBNs effectively replaced the earlier BDBNs.

The court concluded that the EPA did expressly authorise the attorney to renew any BDBN made by the Member, thereby granting the attorney the necessary authority to execute the new BDBNs. The court held that the 2022 BDBN executed by the attorney was valid and constituted an effective binding nomination. It determined that the new BDBNs replaced the earlier ones, as the Member had lost capacity to make such decisions, and the attorney was acting within the scope of the powers granted by the EPA.

Consequently, the court declared that the 2022 BDBN executed by the attorney was valid and ordered the Applicant to pay all death benefits in accordance with this nomination. The court also ordered that the Applicant's costs and the costs of Kylie Michelle Stannett be paid out of the Fund on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court declares that:

1. The document entitled ‘Binding Death Benefit Nomination’ executed by Robert John Stannett (Member), a member of the Robert Stannett Superannuation Fund (Fund) by his enduring attorney Peter James Stannett and dated 17 May 2022 (the 2022 BDBN) constitutes an effective binding nomination of the payment of the Member’s benefit made in accordance with clause 19.2 of the rules of the Fund as set out in the Deed of Variation executed 24 May 2019 (2019 Deed), notwithstanding that it is executed by the Member by his enduring attorney, and the Applicant must, in accordance with clause 19.3 of the 2019 Deed, pay all death benefits payable in respect of the Member in accordance with the 2022 BDBN.

The Court orders that:

2. The Applicant’s costs and the costs of Kylie Michelle Stannett of and incidental to this application be paid out of the Fund on an indemnity basis.

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.

CITATION:	Re Rentis Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 252
IN THE MATTER OF:	An application by RENTIS PTY LTD ACN 070 419 975 as trustee for the ROBERT STANNETT SUPERANNUATION FUND
PARTIES:	RENTIS PTY LTD ACN 070 419 975 (applicant)
FILE NO:	12809 of 2023
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 October 2023 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2023
JUDGE:	Applegarth J
ORDER:	The Court declares that: 1. The document entitled ‘Binding Death Benefit Nomination’ executed by Robert John Stannett (Member), a member of the Robert Stannett Superannuation Fund (Fund) by his enduring attorney Peter James Stannett and dated 17 May 2022 (the 2022 BDBN) constitutes an effective binding nomination of the payment of the Member’s benefit made in accordance with clause 19.2 of the rules of the Fund as set out in the Deed of Variation executed 24 May 2019 (2019 Deed), notwithstanding that it is executed by the Member by his enduring attorney, and the Applicant must, in accordance with clause 19.3 of the 2019 Deed, pay all death benefits payable in respect of the Member in accordance with the 2022 BDBN. The Court orders that: 2. The Applicant’s costs and the costs of Kylie Michelle Stannett of and incidental to this application be paid out of the Fund on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	SUPERANNUATION – BENEFITS – MATTERS AFFECTING ENTITLEMENT TO AND PAYMENT OF – OTHER - where the member of a self-managed superannuation fund made a binding death benefit nomination (“BDBN”) in favour of his wife and children - where the member gave an enduring power of attorney (“EPA”) appointing his wife and brother - where the member lost capacity to make personal and financial decisions - where the member’s wife died, and the surviving attorney executed a third and fourth BDBN - where the EPA expressly authorised the attorney to renew any BDBN made - whether the attorney had the power to make the BDBN pursuant to powers given in the EPA - whether the later BDBN validly replaced the earlier BDBNs CONTRACTS – PARTICULAR PARTIES – PRINCIPAL AND AGENT – AUTHORITY OF AGENTS – POWERS OF ATTORNEY – EXTENT OF AUTHORITY UNDER PARTICULAR POWERS - where the member of a self-managed superannuation fund made a binding death benefit nomination (“BDBN”) in favour of his wife and children - where the member gave an enduring power of attorney (“EPA”) appointing his wife and brother - where the member lost capacity to make personal and financial decisions - where the member’s wife died, and the surviving attorney executed a third and fourth BDBN - where the EPA expressly authorised the attorney to renew any BDBN made - whether the attorney had the power to make the BDBN pursuant to powers given in the EPA - whether the later BDBN validly replaced the earlier BDBNs Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) Re Narumon [2019] 2 Qd R 247, cited Spina…