van Camp v Bellahealth Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWSC 7

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: van Camp v Bellahealth Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 7
Hearing dates: 1, 2, 3 and 4 May 2023
Date of orders: 22 January 2024
Decision date: 22 January 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Henry J
Decision:
See [280]

Catchwords:
EQUITY — superannuation fund — death benefits — where member of self-managed superannuation fund signed binding death benefit nomination on day of death nominating de facto partner as beneficiary — whether binding death benefit nomination valid and binding — capacity — assessment of member’s mental capacity — where member had ill-health, hospitalised and administered opioids — unconscionable conduct — whether special disadvantage — whether notice of special disadvantage — whether donee took advantage of special disadvantage — whether transaction was improvident — held that member did not lack capacity and transaction not unconscionable

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
A v N [2012] NSWSC 354
Attorney-General (NSW) v World Best Holdings Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 557; [2005] NSWCA 261
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1; [2019] HCA 18
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362; [1956] HCA 81
Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457; [1998] HCA 66
Collins v May [2000] WASC 29
Commercial Bank Australia Limited v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14
Drivas v Jakopovic [2019] NSWCA 218
Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423; [1954] HCA 17
Guthrie v Spence (2009) 78 NSWLR 225; [2009] NSWCA 369
Hanna v Raoul [2018] NSWCA 201
Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 24; [2022] HCA 21
Johnson v Smith [2010] NSWCA 306
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392; [2013] HCA 25
Landers v Landers (1914) 19 CLR 222; [1914] HCA 74
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621; [1992] HCA 61
Mentink v Olsen [2020] NSWCA 182
Murphy v Doman (2003) 58 NSWLR 51; [2003] NSWCA 249
Nitopi v Nitopi (2022) 109 NSWLR 390; [2022] NSWCA 162
Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525; [2016] HCA 28
Parker v Felgate (1883) LR 8 PD 171
Scott v Scott [2012] NSWSC 1541
Szozda v Szozda [2010] NSWSC 804
Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6; 96 ALJR 271
Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 262 CLR 85; [2017] HCA 49
Turner v Windeyer [2003] NSWSC 1147

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lindy van Camp (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Bellahealth Pty Ltd (First Defendant/First Cross-Claimant)
Walter Nespolon (Second Defendant/Third Cross-Claimant)
James Dickson (Third Defendant/Second Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D. C. Price (Plaintiff)
C. P. Birtles (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Iles Selley Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2021/200360
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 26 July 2020, Dr Harry Nespolon signed a “Binding Death Benefit Notice” (BDBN) in relation to the Nespolon Superannuation Fund (Fund) that directed the Fund trustee to pay Dr…

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 van Camp v Bellahealth Pty Ltd 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: [2024] NSWSC 7
Decision Date: 22 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of van Camp v Bellahealth Pty Ltd, the dispute was brought before the court regarding the validity of a binding death benefit nomination made by the deceased member of a self-managed superannuation fund. The deceased had signed the nomination on the day of their death, designating their de facto partner as the beneficiary of the fund. The court was tasked with determining whether the nomination was valid and binding, particularly in light of the member's ill-health and recent hospitalisation.

The primary legal issues the court had to address included whether the deceased member lacked the mental capacity to sign the binding death benefit nomination and whether the transaction was unconscionable due to any special disadvantage or improvidence. The court was required to assess the member's mental capacity at the time of signing, taking into account their medical history, recent hospitalisation, and the administration of opioids. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the de facto partner, as the nominated beneficiary, had taken advantage of any special disadvantage and whether the nomination was improvident.

The court found that the deceased member did not lack the capacity to sign the binding death benefit nomination. The member's ill-health and recent hospitalisation did not conclusively establish a lack of mental capacity. The court further determined that there was no special disadvantage or improvidence in the transaction. The de facto partner did not take advantage of the member's special disadvantage, and the nomination was not improvident. Consequently, the court held that the binding death benefit nomination was valid and binding.

The final orders of the court confirmed the validity of the binding death benefit nomination, recognising the de facto partner as the rightful beneficiary of the deceased member's superannuation fund. The court ruled in favour of the nominated beneficiary, affirming the binding nature of the nomination despite the deceased member's medical circumstances.

Orders