Williams v Is Industry Fund Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Williams v IS Industry Fund Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 529

File number:

QUD 200 of 2017

Judge:

LOGAN J

Date of judgment:

20 April 2018

Catchwords:

SUPERANNUATION – appeal against the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal – whether there was an ‘interdependent’ relationship – whether there was jurisdictional error – no such error – appeal dismissed.

Legislation:

Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 37(6), 46

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) ss 10, 10A

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 1.04AAAA(1)

Cases cited:

Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme v Edington (2011) 119 ALD 472

Edwards v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2017] FCAFC 173

Lykogiannis v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 361

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Williams v IS Industry Fund Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 524

Date of hearing:

28 June 2017

Date of last submissions:

28 June 2017

Registry:

Queensland

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

24

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr P Kingham

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Maurice Blackburn

Counsel for the Respondents:

The respondents did not appear

ORDERS

QUD 200 of 2017

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH FRANCIS WILLIAMS

Applicant

AND:

IS INDUSTRY FUND PTY LTD

First Respondent

BRADLEY SELVIG, AS THE LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LATE JOSEPH STEPHEN WILLIAMS

Second Respondent

SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL

Third Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 APRIL 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOGAN J:

1. This is the second occasion on which the applicant, Mr Joseph Francis Williams, has appealed against a decision of the third respondent, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (Tribunal), affirming a decision by the first respondent, IS Industry Fund Pty Ltd (IS Industry), the trustee of a superannuation fund known as the Intrust Super Fund. A right to appeal to this Court, on a question of law, against a decision of the Tribunal is conferred by s 46 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) (the SRC Act).

2. Until his untimely death, Mr Williams’ son, the late Joseph Stephen Williams (deceased), was a member of the Fund.

3. On each occasion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of IS Industry that a death benefit payable under the Rules of that Fund should be paid to the brother of the deceased and the executor of his estate, the second respondent, Mr Bradley Selvig, rather than to Mr Williams.

4. On the first occasion, Mr Williams succeeded in his appeal with the result that the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for rehearing according to law and the Court’s reasons for judgement: Williams v IS Industry Fund Pty Ltd [2016]…