CITATION: Terry Swift v SAS Trustee Corporation [2009] NSWDC 149 HEARING DATE(S): 5 June 2009 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 5 June 2009 JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: C Armitage DCJ DECISION: I order that the decision of the defendant dated 19 December 2007 backdating the plaintiff's superannuation pension to the date of his application on 1 March 2004 be confirmed. CATCHWORDS: Police superannuation - backdating of plaintiff's superannuation allowance to date of medical retirement refused when application made some 20 years after date of resignation. LEGISLATION CITED: Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 2006
Superannuation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2006.
Superannuation Administration Act 1996CASES CITED: Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261
Carr v Finance Corporation Australia Ltd [2] (1982) 150 CLR 139.
Hawkesley v May (1956) 1 QB 304
Corin v Patton (1990) 169 CLR 540
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
Hartigan Nominees Pty Ltd v Rydge (1992) 29 NSW LR 432PARTIES: Terry Swift (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)FILE NUMBER(S): RJ00243/08 COUNSEL: Mr G Gemmell (plaintiff)
Mr T Ower (defendant)
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: By further amended statement of claim filed by leave in court today, without objection from the defendant, the plaintiff claims that the decision of the defendant in terms of s 9A(4)(a) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (the Act) dated 19 December 2007 be set aside and that an order in terms of s 9A(4) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (as amended currently as at 20 February 2004) be made to the effect that the plaintiff be awarded a superannuation allowance of 72.75 percent of his salary as at the date of discharge and that that payment be backdated from the date of his discharge, being 5 November 1981.
2 The decision of the defendant trustee corporation to which the plaintiff refers in the statement of claim is annexed to it and dated 19 December 2007 and is annexure “A”, and relevantly it provides in a single paragraph that:
- “STC have further determined that your pension shall commence from date of application being 1 March 2004.”
3 Counsel have provided me with written submissions and have spoken to them in such a way that has crystallised the issues and I thank them for that. It has enabled me to deliver ex tempore reasons at the conclusion of argument, which is always desirable in this court where much other business awaits a judge’s attention.
4 The plaintiff’s claim is of course resisted by the defendant by the contention that the decision to which I have referred, to backdate the plaintiff’s superannuation pension to the date of his application for it, is correct. That question raises two matters. The first is the application of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 2006 because, as the parties agree, that legislation came into effect between the date of the plaintiff’s application for a retrospective medical discharge from the New South Wales Police Force under s 10B(2) of the Act on 20…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Terry Swift v SAS Trustee Corporation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWDC 149
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was required to backdate the plaintiff's superannuation allowance to the date of his medical retirement, given the significant delay in making the application. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and whether the delay in making the application was a valid reason for refusing the backdating of the superannuation pension. Additionally, the court had to assess whether there were any relevant policies or guidelines that could inform the decision-making process.
In considering the legal issue, the court examined the provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and found that there was no obligation on the defendant to backdate the superannuation pension to the date of the plaintiff's medical retirement. The court further held that the significant delay in making the application was a valid reason for refusing the backdating of the superannuation pension. The court also noted that the defendant had acted in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines when making the decision. Consequently, the court confirmed the decision of the defendant dated 19 December 2007, and refused the plaintiff's application for backdating of the superannuation pension.
In conclusion, the Federal Court of Australia confirmed the decision of the defendant, and refused the plaintiff's application for backdating of the superannuation pension. The court found that there was no obligation on the defendant to backdate the superannuation pension to the date of the plaintiff's medical retirement, and that the significant delay in making the application was a valid reason for refusing the backdating of the superannuation pension. The decision was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and relevant policies and guidelines.
Orders
Orders of the court
I order that the decision of the defendant dated 19 December 2007 backdating the plaintiff's superannuation pension to the date of his application on 1 March 2004 be confirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.