Legal Research
Cases
Sharp v Maritime Super Pty Ltd

Sharp v Maritime Super Pty Ltd

Case [2012] NSWSC 1350 7 November 2012

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sharp v Maritime Super Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1350
Hearing dates: 17 October 2012
Decision date: 07 November 2012
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Ward J
Decision:
Order that matter be remitted to trustee for determination (and report back to Court thereon) as to total and disablement benefit having regard to proper construction of relevant rule in Trust Deed

Catchwords:
DEEDS - question of construction of superannuation trust deed - consideration of principles applicable to contractual construction
TRUSTS - duty of trustee to determine application by plaintiff - where trustee proceeded on basis of what has now been found to be an incorrect construction of the relevant Rule - whether matter should be remitted to trustee to make determination having regard to proper construction or whether Court should make a determination as to the entitlement claimed - where no evidence that trustee previously acted in bad faith - HELD - matter remitted to trustee for determination
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth)
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)
Trustee Act 1925 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AFC Holdings Pty Ltd v Shiprock Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 985
Alcoa of Australia Retirement Plan Pty Ltd v Frost [2012] VSCA 238
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99
Bank of New Zealand v Simpson [1900] 1 AC 182
Byrnes v Kendle (2011) 243 CLR 253
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337
Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 36
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603
Gilberg v Maritime Super Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 325
Gilberg v Stevedoring Employees Retirement Fund Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1318
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28
Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161
Maciejewski v Telstra Super Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 601
Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v Palm Assets Pty Ltd (2009) 261 ALR 283
Metropolitan Gas Co v Federated Gas Employees' Industrial Union (1925) 35 CLR 449
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451
Re Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance; Ex Parte Hoyts Corp Pty Ltd (No 1) (1993) 178 CLR 379
Scott v National Trust [1998] 2 All ER 705
Shore v Wilson (1839) 8 ER 450
Southern Cross Assurance Co Ltd v Australian Provincial Assurance Association Ltd (1935) 52 CLR 618
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165
Vidovic v Email Superannuation Pty Ltd (unreported, NSWSC, Bryson J, 3 March 1995)
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd [2011] HCA 45
Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 522
Texts Cited: K Mason AC QC, "The Distinctiveness and Independence of Intermediate Courts of Appeal" (2012) 86 ALJ 308
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ben Sharp (Plaintiff)
Maritime Super Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
B W Rayment QC with M J Gollan (Plaintiff)
R A Cavanagh…

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.

Continue reading Sharp v Maritime Super Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Sharp v Maritime Super Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1350
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1350
Decision Date: 07 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sharp v Maritime Super Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the interpretation of a superannuation trust deed. The plaintiff sought to determine their entitlement to certain benefits under the deed, while the trustee, Maritime Super Pty Ltd, had previously applied an incorrect construction of the relevant Rule in making its determination. The matter was brought before the court to resolve the issue of whether the determination should be made by the trustee, having regard to the proper construction, or whether the court should make the determination itself. The court was tasked with considering the principles applicable to contractual construction and the duty of the trustee to determine the application by the plaintiff.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the matter should be remitted to the trustee for a new determination, having regard to the proper construction of the relevant Rule, or whether the court should make a determination as to the entitlement claimed by the plaintiff. The court considered the established principles of contractual construction and the absence of evidence suggesting that the trustee had previously acted in bad faith. The court held that, in the absence of any evidence of bad faith, the matter should be remitted to the trustee for a new determination, taking into account the proper construction of the relevant Rule.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the duty of the trustee is to determine the application by the plaintiff, and where the trustee has proceeded on the basis of an incorrect construction, the matter should be remitted to the trustee for a new determination. The court noted that the absence of evidence of bad faith on the part of the trustee was a significant factor in its decision. The court held that the matter should be remitted to the trustee to make a new determination of the plaintiff's entitlement, having regard to the proper construction of the relevant Rule. The court did not consider it appropriate to make the determination itself, given the absence of evidence of bad faith on the part of the trustee.

The final orders of the court were that the matter be remitted to the trustee to make a new determination of the plaintiff's entitlement, having regard to the proper construction of the relevant Rule. The court did not make a determination itself, as it considered the absence of evidence of bad faith on the part of the trustee to be a significant factor in its decision. The court held that it was appropriate to remit the matter to the trustee for a new determination, rather than making the determination itself.

Orders