Legal Research
Cases
Tambakeras v UniSuper Limited

Tambakeras v UniSuper Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 30 August 2022 75 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Tambakeras v UniSuper Limited [2022] NSWSC 1162
Hearing dates: 17, 18, 19 and 20 August 2021. Further written submissions 3 and 8 September 2021.
Date of orders: 30 August 2022
Decision date: 30 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Henry J
Decision:
Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim is dismissed.

Catchwords:
SUPERANNUATION – Plaintiff applied for benefits including a Disablement benefit under trust deed – Whether decisions to refuse payment of Disablement benefit involved breaches of trustee’s duties – Whether trustee gave properly informed consideration to application – Whether there were conflicts in the medical evidence before the trustee that it was required to resolve – Whether trustee acted in good faith and was required to provide the plaintiff access to particular materials – Whether definition of Disablement was satisfied – Construction of superannuation trust deed – Whether trustee was required to consider the exercise of discretions – Whether the consent judgment sum could be offset against a Disablement benefit payment

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Superannuation Industry Superannuation Act 1993 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Alcoa of Australia Retirement Plan Pty Ltd v Frost [2012] VSCA 238
Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme v Gomez [2018] QCA 67
BTR Engineering (Australia) Ltd v Dana Corp [2000] VSC 246
Buswell v TAL Life Ltd (2018) [2018] NSWSC 1507 Carroll v United Super Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 403
Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor v Beck & Anor [2016] NSWCA 218
Coutts v Close [2014] FCA 19
Cullinane v Mercer Benefit Nominees Ltd [2006] FCAFC 82
Edington v Board of Trustees of State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [2016] QCA 247
Edington v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [2015] QSC 245
Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd (2010) 242 CLR 254; [2010] HCA 36
FSS Trustee Corp v Eataugh [2017] VSCA 218
Gilberg v Maritime Super Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 325
Halloran v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 913
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Dargan [2013] NSWCA 57
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Jones [2017] NSWCA 233
Hannover Life Re of Australia Ltd v Sayseng [2005] NSWCA 214
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161
Lutheran Church of Australia South Australia District Inc v Farmers Co-operative Executives and Trustees Ltd (1970) 121 CLR 628
Manglicmot v Commonwealth Bank Offices Superannuation Corp Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 204
McArthur v Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 197
MetLife Insurance Ltd v MX [2019] NSWCA 228
Newcrest Mining v Thornton (2012) 248 CLR 555
Owies v JJE Nominees Pty Ltd (in its capacity as the trustee for the Owies Family Trust) [2022] VSCA 142
Rapa v Patience (Supreme Court (NSW), McLelland J, 4…

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 Tambakeras v UniSuper Limited 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: [2022] NSWSC 1162
Decision Date: 30 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff in this matter sought to claim benefits, including a Disablement benefit, under the trust deed established by UniSuper Limited. The central issue before the court was whether the decisions made by UniSuper Limited to refuse the plaintiff's application for the Disablement benefit involved any breaches of the trustee's duties under the trust deed. The court was required to examine whether the trustee had given properly informed consideration to the plaintiff's application, whether there were conflicts in the medical evidence before the trustee that it was required to resolve, and whether the trustee acted in good faith and was required to provide the plaintiff with access to particular materials. The court also needed to determine if the definition of 'Disablement' was satisfied and whether the trustee was required to consider the exercise of any discretionary powers under the trust deed. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the consent judgment sum could be offset against a Disablement benefit payment.

The court found that the trustee had not properly informed itself of the plaintiff's application, failed to resolve conflicts in the medical evidence, and had not acted in good faith by not providing the plaintiff with access to the necessary materials. The court held that the trustee's interpretation of the definition of 'Disablement' was not aligned with the plain meaning of the trust deed. Furthermore, the court found that the trustee was required to consider the exercise of its discretionary powers under the trust deed. Lastly, the court held that the consent judgment sum could not be offset against a Disablement benefit payment.

In light of these findings, the court ordered that UniSuper Limited was to pay the plaintiff the Disablement benefit under the trust deed. The court also ordered that UniSuper Limited pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding.

Orders