Telstra Super Pty Ltd v Finch - [2009] VSCA 318

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 3918 of 2008

TELSTRA SUPER PTY LTD (ACN 007 422 522)

ALAN MICHAEL FINCH

AND BY CROSS-APPEAL:

ALAN MICHAEL FINCH

TELSTRA SUPER PTY LTD (ACN 007 422 522)

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and REDLICH JJA and HANSEN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 July 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 December 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSCA 318
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Byrne J, 28 November 2008, VSC 527

---

Superannuation – Total and permanent invalidity (‘TPI’) – Trust deed provided that member eligible for TPI benefit if ceased to be an employee because of TPI - Trustee made determinations that claimant not eligible for TPI benefit – Primary judge found determinations open to trustee on materials before it and trustee’s reasons not unsound nevertheless determinations set aside on basis that trustee failed to give matter real and genuine consideration – Errors of law – Appeal allowed – Construction of deed – Claimant not eligible for benefit as definition of TPI not satisfied at date of cessation – Trustee gave matter real and genuine consideration – Determinations open to trustee.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant/Cross-Respondent	Mr A G Uren QC with Mr R J Harris	Freehills
For the Respondent/Cross-Appellant	Dr I J Hardingham QC with Mr J P Brett and Ms M C Wall	Arnold, Thomas and Becker

BUCHANAN JA:

I would allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal for the reasons stated by Hansen AJA. I would make the orders which his Honour proposes.

REDLICH JA:

For the reasons given by Hansen AJA I would allow the appeal and make the orders he proposes.

HANSEN AJA:

Introduction

Telstra Super Pty Ltd (‘the appellant’ or ‘the trustee’) appeals from orders made by a judge of the Trial Division on 28 November 2008 which relevantly (a) declared ‘void and of no effect’ two determinations[1] made by the appellant (in its capacity as trustee of the Telstra Superannuation Scheme) rejecting the claim of Alan Michael Finch (‘the respondent’) for Total and Permanent Invalidity (‘TPI’) benefit, and (b) ordered that the question of the respondent’s entitlement to TPI benefit be remitted to the trustee for its determination in accordance with law.
[1]Dated 21 March 2002 and 20 March 2003 respectively.

The respondent filed an Amended Notice of Cross-appeal and a Notice of Contention, however it is convenient to defer discussion of this aspect until the section describing the parties’ submissions.

Background

As mentioned, the appellant/cross-respondent is the trustee of the Telstra Superannuation Scheme, and may conveniently be referred to as ‘the trustee’. Alan Michael Finch, the respondent/cross-appellant, may conveniently be referred

to as ‘the respondent’.

The respondent was employed by Telstra Corporation Ltd from 1 October 1992 until 23 January 1998. At all relevant times, he was a member of the Telstra Superannuation Scheme (‘the Scheme’).

The trust deed governing the Scheme relevantly provides (in cl 2.3.3) that:

… if a Member ceases to be an Employee… because of Total and Permanent…

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 Telstra Super Pty Ltd v Finch

Details

AGLC: Telstra Super Pty Ltd v Finch [2009] VSCA 318
Case: [2009] VSCA 318
Decision Date: 23 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Telstra Super Pty Ltd v Finch, the dispute arose from the determination of the trustee of the Telstra Superannuation Fund that the claimant was not eligible for a total and permanent invalidity benefit. The claimant had ceased employment due to a claim of total and permanent invalidity, but the trustee denied the benefit based on their interpretation of the trust deed. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the trustee’s decision was legally sound.

The primary legal issue was whether the trustee’s determinations that the claimant was not eligible for the TPI benefit were legally valid. This involved interpreting the trust deed and assessing whether the trustee had given the matter real and genuine consideration. The court needed to decide if the trustee’s decision was open to them on the materials before them and if their reasons were not unsound. Additionally, the court had to determine if there were any errors of law in the trustee’s decision-making process.

The court found that the trustee’s determinations were open to them on the materials before them and that the reasons provided were not unsound. The primary judge had erred by setting aside the trustee’s determinations based on a perceived failure to give the matter real and genuine consideration. The court held that the trustee had indeed given the matter real and genuine consideration, and their construction of the trust deed was reasonable. The claimant did not satisfy the definition of total and permanent invalidity at the date of cessation, which was a requirement for eligibility under the trust deed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the trustee’s determinations were upheld.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the primary judge, and affirm the trustee’s determinations that the claimant was not eligible for the TPI benefit. The court’s decision emphasised the importance of proper consideration and legal interpretation in superannuation disputes.

Orders