Scott Anderson v SAS Trustee Corporation

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Scott Anderson v SAS Trustee Corporation [2019] NSWDC 406
Hearing dates:	6 - 8 March 2019
Date of orders:	08 March 2019
Decision date:	08 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See [87]
Catchwords:	POLICE SUPERANNUATION -
Legislation Cited:	Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, Workers Compensation Act 1987
Cases Cited:	Boland v SASTC (1999) 97 IR 127, Morley v SASTC [2007] NSWIRC 90, SASTC v Ainsworth [2011] NSWIRC 128, Locker v SASTC [2014] NSWIRC 144, Cook v SASTC [2014] NSWIRC 43
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Scott Anderson (Plaintiff) SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Hammond (Plaintiff) Mr T Ower (Defendant)   Solicitors: Carroll & O’Dea (Plaintiff) SASTC (Defendant)
File Number(s):	RJ 231/18
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

[7 MARCH 2019]

1. HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Scott George Anderson, is a former senior constable of the police. He was attested as a probationary constable of police on 25 November 1983. He there upon became a contributor to the Police Superannuation Fund established by the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906. The plaintiff submitted his resignation from the police force on 18 June 1996 and asked that his last day of duty be 25 June 1996. That came to pass. At the time that he resigned that plaintiff did not tell anybody in authority nor did he mention in any document that he was incapacitated for the duties of his office as a senior constable of police.

2. On 1 December 2011 the defendant received from the plaintiff's then solicitors, an application under s 10B(2) of the Act applying for a medical discharge benefit. The date of the application may be 1 September 2011. The date is difficult to read. It is clear that the application was originally sent to the defendant on 30 August under a cover of a letter dated 30 August 2011 but it went astray. It was resubmitted under the cover of a letter on 30 November 2011. On 24 September 2015, almost four years later, the Police Superannuation Advisory Committee, under delegated authority from the defendant, declined to certify pursuant to s 10B(2) of the Act that the plaintiff was incapable from a specified infirmity of body or mind of discharging the duties of his office because of the paucity of medical evidence available.

3. That gave the plaintiff the right to apply to this Court within six months of that decision. However, the defendant gave the plaintiff erroneous advice and advised him that he could within two years of the notification of the decision of 25 September 2015 make an application to the dispute officer of the defendant. The matter went before the defendant's Dispute Committee on 5 September 2017, two years later, and it determined that it was not satisfied that there was sufficient basis to certify that the plaintiff was incapable of discharging the duties of his office at the time of his resignation on 25 June 1996.

4. The defendant then gave the plaintiff further erroneous legal…