Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and Minister for Sport v Nuttall
Case
•
[2017] QSC 137
•28 June 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and Minister for Sport v Nuttall [2017] QSC 137
[2017] QSC 137
28 June 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved the Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and Minister for Sport, who were acting on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Nuttall, a former member of the Legislative Assembly and Minister of the Crown. The dispute centred on the respondent’s misconduct while in office, which had led to a criminal conviction. This misconduct empowered the court to direct the respondent to pay the applicant a ‘just and equitable’ sum of his publicly funded superannuation. The court was required to determine what constituted a 'just and equitable' sum, considering various factors, including the length of the respondent’s service prior to the misconduct, the seriousness of the offences, and whether the respondent had repaid any illegally obtained monies.
The court acknowledged that there was no rigid formula to determine what was ‘just and equitable’ but rather, the sum would be decided based on a variety of factors. The respondent had a long period of service as an elected member before committing the offences, and he had repaid the illegally obtained monies. However, the court noted that the respondent’s conduct was serious and committed while he was a Minister. The court considered whether the hardship of the order upon the respondent from punishment for his crime was a relevant factor. Ultimately, the court concluded that using a broad-brush approach, one quarter of the publicly funded component of the commutation value of the respondent’s primary pension was appropriate.
In its reasoning, the court noted that the figure of one third of the publicly funded component of the commutation value of the primary pension could be considered a ceiling, given the period during which the respondent served in Parliament without offending. The seriousness of the offences was great but not as serious as the conduct in other cases. The value of the gain to Mr Nuttall from the offences was significant, but it had been recovered. Therefore, the court ordered Mr Nuttall to pay to the Treasurer on behalf of the Crown 25% of the publicly funded component of the commutation value of his primary pension, which, including interest updated to the date of the decision, was $1,577,682.
The court’s final order was that the respondent is to pay to the applicant on behalf of the Crown 25% of the publicly funded component of the commutation value of the respondent’s primary pension, amounting to $1,577,682.
The court acknowledged that there was no rigid formula to determine what was ‘just and equitable’ but rather, the sum would be decided based on a variety of factors. The respondent had a long period of service as an elected member before committing the offences, and he had repaid the illegally obtained monies. However, the court noted that the respondent’s conduct was serious and committed while he was a Minister. The court considered whether the hardship of the order upon the respondent from punishment for his crime was a relevant factor. Ultimately, the court concluded that using a broad-brush approach, one quarter of the publicly funded component of the commutation value of the respondent’s primary pension was appropriate.
In its reasoning, the court noted that the figure of one third of the publicly funded component of the commutation value of the primary pension could be considered a ceiling, given the period during which the respondent served in Parliament without offending. The seriousness of the offences was great but not as serious as the conduct in other cases. The value of the gain to Mr Nuttall from the offences was significant, but it had been recovered. Therefore, the court ordered Mr Nuttall to pay to the Treasurer on behalf of the Crown 25% of the publicly funded component of the commutation value of his primary pension, which, including interest updated to the date of the decision, was $1,577,682.
The court’s final order was that the respondent is to pay to the applicant on behalf of the Crown 25% of the publicly funded component of the commutation value of the respondent’s primary pension, amounting to $1,577,682.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Public Law
Legal Concepts
-
Unjust Enrichment
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Public Official Misconduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
5
Talga Ltd v MBC International Ltd
[1976] HCA 22
Theophanous v The Commonwealth
[2006] HCA 18
Talga Ltd v MBC International Ltd
[1976] HCA 22