Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: SAS Trustee Corporation v Arthur Cox [2011] NSWCA 408 Hearing dates: 3 February 2011 Decision date: 20 December 2011 Before: McColl JA at [1]; Campbell JA at [136]; Sackville AJA at [154] Decision: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the determination of Ashford DCJ made on 26 November 2009.
3. Remit the matter to the District Court in its residual jurisdiction for determination by that Court in accordance with law.
4. Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: SUPERANNUATION - police superannuation - backdating of superannuation entitlement for hurt on duty injury to date of medical discharge - application made 16 years after discharge - whether primary judge took into account irrelevant considerations or disregarded relevant considerations - Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 s 9A(4), s 10B
TRUSTS - Superannuation - defined benefit scheme - trustee a statutory body - duty of trustee -- whether trustee had a duty to advise beneficiaries of potential rights - relevance of contributions of fund
SUPERANNUATION - where delay in processing application pending legislative amendments - whether error in position of law in considering delay between application for benefit and decisionLegislation Cited: Constitution (Consolidated Fund) Amendment Act 1982
Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 (NI)
Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2004
District Court Act 1973
Interpretation Act 1987
Police Act 1990
Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906
Police Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 2007
Superannuation Administration Act 1987
Superannuation Administration Act 1996
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)
Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 2006
Trustee Act 1925
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998Cases Cited: Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999] 1 WLR 1399
Amaca Pty Ltd v Doughan [2011] NSWCA 169
Asea Brown Boveri Superannuation Fund No 1 Pty Ltd v Asea Brown Boveri Pty Ltd, McKeown, Gray & ABB Properties (Vic) Pty Ltd [1999] 1 VR 144
Attorney-General (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd [1955] HCA 9; (1955) 92 CLR 113
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 13
Bathurst City Council v PWC Properties Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 59; (1998) 195 CLR 566
Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme v Edington [2011] FCAFC 8; (2011) 119 ALD 472
Boland v SAS Trustee Corp (1999) 97 IR 127
Brittlebank v Goodwin (1868) LR 5 Eq 545
Byrne & Frew v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SAS Trustee Corporation v Cox 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] NSWCA 408
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in taking into account irrelevant considerations or disregarding relevant ones when assessing Mr Cox's claim. Specifically, the court considered the duties of the trustee of a defined benefit superannuation scheme, including whether the trustee had a duty to advise beneficiaries of potential rights, and the relevance of contributions made to the fund. The court also examined whether any delay in processing Mr Cox's application, which was attributed to pending legislative amendments, constituted an error in the legal position taken by the primary judge.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in law. The court reasoned that the trustee's duty extended to considering the merits of the claim, including the impact of delay, and that the primary judge had failed to properly assess the relevant statutory provisions and the trustee's obligations. The court concluded that the matter should be reconsidered by the District Court.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the District Court's determination, and remitted the matter to the District Court for determination in accordance with law. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the determination of Ashford DCJ made on 26 November 2009.
3. Remit the matter to the District Court in its residual jurisdiction for determination by that Court in accordance with law.
4. Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.