Rushton v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation

The appeal in Rushton v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation involved the applicant's eligibility for a spouse pension. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant contested the Australian Financial Complaints Authority's (AFCA) decision that he was not eligible for a spouse pension. The Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (the trustee) and the applicant's three children opposed the appeal.

The court was required to determine the validity of the appeal against AFCA's decision. Specifically, it had to consider whether the notice of appeal complied with the legal requirements and whether the applicant was a spouse under the relevant rules. The court also had to decide on the objection to competency by the first respondent and the interlocutory application by the first respondent seeking summary dismissal, a permanent stay, or striking out of the originating application.

The court held that the amendment to the definition of "marital or couple relationship" in the Rules was not in force when the trustee made its relevant decisions. However, the amendment was in force when AFCA made its determination dated 4 December 2019. AFCA evidently proceeded on the basis that in performing its review function and in determining whether the trustee's decisions were "fair and reasonable in all the circumstances", regard was to be had to the substantive law as in force at the time the trustee made the relevant decisions. The applicant did not contest this approach. The court found that AFCA correctly determined that it was fair and reasonable for the trustee to conclude that the applicant did not satisfy either limb of the definition of "spouse" when read with the related definition of "marital or couple relationship". The court also found that AFCA correctly determined that the trustee's decision to decline to reconsider the earlier decision was fair and reasonable. The court struck out the notice of appeal and gave the applicant leave to file an amended notice of appeal within three weeks.

The court dismissed the notice of objection to competency and the interlocutory application. It noted that if either party wished to dispute the order on costs, they should file and serve an outline of written submissions on costs within five business days. The court also noted that there was a separate order concerning the costs of the case management hearing held on 25 February 2020.