Legal Research
Cases
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd

Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 13 November 2003 68 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: SAYSENG v. KELLOGG SUPERANNUATION P/L & ANOR [2003] NSWSC 945 revised - 16/07/2007

HEARING DATE(S): 13, 14 & 15/10/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 November 2003

JURISDICTION:
EQUITY

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson J at 1

DECISION: Decision of insurer set aside: question to be determined by the Court: see [98]

CATCHWORDS: SUPERANNUATION - Discretionary trust - challenge to opinion of trustee on Total and Permanent Disablement claim where some medical reports supported claim and some supported rejection - grounds on which Court may act - challenge to opinion of insurer on TPD where insurer's opinion was element in whether insurance was available to trustee - grounds on which the Court may act.

LEGISLATION CITED: Insurance Contracts Act 1984
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993

CASES CITED: Abacus Trust Co. (Isle of Man) v. Barr [2003] 1 All ER 763
Barroora Pty Ltd v. Provincial Insurance Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 170
Beverley v. Tyndall Life Insurance Co. Ltd SCWA Full Court (1999) 21 WAR 327
Chammas v. Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd (1993) 7 ANZ Ins Cas. 61-175
C.E. Heath Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v. Grey & Ors [1993] 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-199; (1993) 32 NSWLR 25
Edwards v. The Hunter Valley Co-op Dairy Co. Ltd & Anor [1992] 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-113
Heitman v. Guardian Assurance Company Ltd (1992) 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-107
In Re Hastings-Bass Deceased [1975] Ch 25
McArthur v. Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 197
Baden Deeds Trust re: McPhail v. Doulton [1971] AC 424
Maciejewski v. Telstra Super Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 341
Parkes Management Ltd v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd [1977] ACLC 29,545
Rapa v. Patience (4 April 1985 unreported)
Szuster v. Hest Aust. Ltd (2000) LSJS 35
Tonkin v. Western Mining Corporation Ltd [1998] 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61-397
Trident General Insurance Co. Ltd v. McNeice Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107
Vidovic v. Email Superannuation Pty Ltd (3 March 1995 unreported)
Wyllie v. National Mutual Life Association of Australasia (18 April 1987 unreported)

PARTIES :
Diosdado Sayseng - Plaintiff
Kellogg Superannuation Pty Limited - First Defendant
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5048/2002

COUNSEL: G. Beauchamp - Plaintiff
V. Heath - D1
S. Torrington - D2

SOLICITORS: Firths, The Compensation Lawyers - Pltf
Blake Dawson Waldron - 1D
Deacons Lawyers, 2D

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRYSON J.

THURSDAY 13 NOVEMBER 2003

5048/02 - DIOSADADO SAYSENG v KELLOGG SUPERANNUATION PTY LIMITED & HANNOVER LIFE RE OF AUSTRALASIA LTD

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings relate to the plaintiff’s claim for Total & Permanent Disablement benefit from the Kellogg Retirement Fund. The first defendant is the Trustee of the Fund. The second defendant is the insurer in a Group Life Contract entered into by the Trustee to cover entitlements against the fund.

2 The plaintiff Mr Sayseng was born in the Philippines on 22 December 1948. He came to Australia as an immigrant in 1988 and…

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: [2003] NSWSC 945
Decision Date: 13 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Sayseng, challenged the decision of the defendant, Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd, to reject his claim for Total and Permanent Disablement (TPD) benefits. The dispute centred on the discretionary decision of the trustee, which was based on the insurer's assessment. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the trustee's decision was legally sound and if it was within their discretion to reject the TPD claim despite some medical evidence supporting Sayseng's condition. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether it was appropriate to interfere with the insurer's opinion, which was a key factor in the trustee's decision. The central issue was whether the trustee had acted within their legal powers and whether the court could intervene on the basis of the conflicting medical evidence.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the applicable laws and principles governing discretionary trusts and the decision-making process of trustees. The court found that the trustee had considered all relevant evidence, including conflicting medical opinions, and had exercised their discretion appropriately. The court emphasised that the trustee's decision was not irrational and was based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Regarding the insurer's opinion, the court held that it was not open to the court to substitute its view for that of the insurer, as long as the insurer's opinion was a reasonable one. The court concluded that the trustee's decision was valid and that the plaintiff's challenge was without merit.

The court dismissed Sayseng's claim and ordered him to pay the defendant's costs. The decision underscores the importance of trustees exercising their discretion in a reasoned and evidence-based manner, and reinforces the limited role of the courts in reviewing such discretionary decisions, particularly where an insurer's opinion is concerned.

Orders