Legal Research
Cases
Reynolds v Sunsuper Pty Ltd

Reynolds v Sunsuper Pty Ltd

Case [2016] QDC 129 7 June 2016

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reynolds v Sunsuper Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] QDC 129

PARTIES:

LISA ANNE REYNOLDS

(plaintiff)

v

SUNSUPER PTY LTD

(first defendant)

&

AIA AUSTRALIA LIMITED

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2353/2014

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21, 22 and 23 March 2016 and 23 May 2016

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

JUDGMENT AND ORDER:

1. That judgment be entered for the defendants.

2. That both the plaintiff and the defendants have leave to file, and serve, a submission on costs, if any, by 4pm 14 June 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

Insurance – Superannuation policy – Whether member entitled to TPD benefit – Not in dispute that Court to decide entitlement in this proceeding

LEGISLATION CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

CASES CITED:

Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Commonwealth)

Enright and Merkin, Sutton on Insurance Law, 4^th ed, Thomson Reuters, 2014, Vol 2

Alcoa of Australia Retirement Plan Pty Ltd v Frost [2012] VSCA 238

Alcoa of Australia Retirement Plan Pty Ltd v Thompson [2002] FCA 256

Baker v Local Government Superannuation Scheme Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1173

Banovic v United Super Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1470

Birdsall v Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd (2015) 89 NSWLR 412

Chammas v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd (1993) ANZ Insurance Cases 61–175

Davis v Rio Tinto State Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd (2002) 118 FCR 170

Edwards v Hunter Valley Co-Op Dairy Co Ltd (1992) 7 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-113

Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd (2010) 242 CLR 254

Giles v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd (1986) 4 ANZ Insurance Cases 60-751

Halloran v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 913

Hannover Life RE of Australasia Ltd and Anor v Dargan (2013) 83 NSWLR 246

Hannover Life RE of Australasia Ltd v Colella [2014] VSCA 205

Ivkovic v Australian Casualty & Life Limited (1994) 10 SR (WA) 325

Machin v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [2010] FCA 969

Manglicmot v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 204

McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579

McArthur v Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 197

Panos v FSS Trustee Corporation [2015] NSWSC 1217

Riley v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd (1986) 4 ANZ Insurance Cases 60-484

Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 583

Shuetrim v FSS Trustee Corporation [2015] NSWSC 464

TAL Life Ltd v Shuetrim; Metlife Insurance Ltd v Shuetrim [2016] NSWCA 68

Wells v Australian Aviation Underwriting Pool Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 226

Wells v Australian Aviation Underwriting Pool [2004] QCA 43

Wheeler v FSS Trustee Corporation as trustee for the First State Superannuation Scheme [2016] NSWSC 534.

Wiley v Board of Trustees, State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [1997] QSC 46

COUNSEL:

M Horvarth for the Plaintiff

K F Holyoak for the First and Second Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Turner Freeman for the Plaintiff

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 Reynolds v Sunsuper Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Reynolds v Sunsuper Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 129
Case: [2016] QDC 129
Decision Date: 7 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Reynolds v Sunsuper Pty Ltd, the primary dispute centred on whether the respondent, Sunsuper, was obligated to pay the applicant, Reynolds, a Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) benefit under a superannuation policy. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The respondent, Sunsuper, denied Reynolds' claim for the TPD benefit, asserting that she did not meet the policy's criteria for such a benefit. Reynolds contended that she did satisfy the necessary conditions for the benefit to be paid.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the superannuation policy and whether Reynolds' circumstances met the specified criteria for the TPD benefit. The court needed to determine the extent to which the policy's terms and conditions were met by the applicant's situation. The primary focus was on whether the applicant had suffered a total and permanent disability as defined by the policy.

The court examined the terms of the policy and the evidence presented by both parties. It concluded that the policy's definition of total and permanent disability was clear and unambiguous, and that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to meet this definition. Consequently, the court held that Reynolds was not entitled to the TPD benefit. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of strict adherence to policy terms and the necessity for clear evidence to substantiate claims under such policies. The final orders of the court were that Reynolds' claim for the TPD benefit was dismissed, with no orders as to costs.

Orders