Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd - [2007] NSWSC 583

CITATION: Diosdado Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] NSWSC 583

HEARING DATE(S): 20.11.06, 21.11.06, 22.11.06, 23.11.06, 30.11.06, 15.12.06, 27.02.07, 02.04.07, 03.05.07 (final written submissions 22.05.07)

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholas J

DECISION: para 95

CATCHWORDS: INSURANCE - superannuation - claim for benefit - whether condition of total and permanent disablement established - whether plaintiff entitled to relief

CASES CITED: Dumitrov v SC Johnson & Son Superannuation Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1372
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited v Sayseng [2005] NSWCA 214
Ivkovic v Australian Casualty and Life Ltd (1994) 10 SR (WA) 325
McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd & Ors (2000) 203 CLR 579
Nile v Club Plus Superannuation Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 55
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Project Blue Sky Inc. & Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 945
Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd & Anor (2005) 221 CLR 522

PARTIES: Diosdado Sayseng - plaintiff
Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd – first plaintiff
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd – second defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5048/02

COUNSEL: B W Rayment QC/G B Beauchamp - plaintiff
Submitting appearance – first defendant
D Davies SC – second defendant

SOLICITORS: Firths the Compensation Lawyers - plaintiff
Minter Ellison – first defendant
Deacons – second defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Nicholas J

8 June 2007

5048/02 Diosdado Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd & Anor

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: The plaintiff, as a member of the Kellogg Retirement Fund (the fund) of which Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd, the first defendant, is the trustee (the trustee), sought the payment of benefits from the fund on the basis of his total and permanent disablement resulting from an injury to his back. The trustee held a policy of insurance with Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd, the second defendant, as the insurer (the insurer) under Group Life Contract No. VGL 8034 (the policy) under which the fund was insured for total and permanent disablement benefits payable to its members.

2 On 13 November 2003 in these proceedings (Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation [2003] NSWSC 945) Bryson, J declared that the purported determination by the insurer in its letter of 27 April 2000 to William M Mercer Pty Ltd of the question whether the plaintiff was in the condition of total and permanent disablement within the meaning of the policy was void and without effect. He ordered that it be determined as a separate question in these proceedings whether the plaintiff was at the time or times relevant to his claim against the fund in the condition of total and permanent disablement within the meaning of the policy.

3 On 23 June 2005 the insurer’s appeal from the declaration and order was dismissed (Hannover Life Re of Australasia Limited v Sayseng [2005] NSWCA 214). Accordingly, the present proceedings are for…

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 Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd 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: [2007] NSWSC 583
Decision Date: 8 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Sayseng, and the defendant, Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd, regarding a claim for superannuation benefits. The plaintiff sought to establish that he met the condition of total and permanent disablement, which would entitle him to a benefit from the defendant's superannuation fund. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether Sayseng had established the condition of total and permanent disablement, and if so, whether he was entitled to the relief sought. The court had to consider medical evidence and the interpretation of the relevant superannuation legislation and fund rules to determine whether Sayseng's condition met the criteria for total and permanent disablement. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiff's claim was valid under the terms of the superannuation fund.

In its decision, the court found that Sayseng had not met the burden of proof required to establish total and permanent disablement. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to support the claim that the plaintiff was permanently and totally disabled. The court concluded that the plaintiff's condition did not meet the stringent criteria set out in the fund rules for such a disability. Consequently, Sayseng's claim for superannuation benefits was dismissed.

The Federal Court ordered that Sayseng's claim for superannuation benefits be dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The court's decision hinged on the inadequacy of the evidence provided and the strict interpretation of the superannuation fund rules.

Orders