Riseley v Suncorp Portfolio Services Ltd [2022] FCAFC 8

Riseley v Suncorp Portfolio Services Ltd [2022] FCAFC 8

The Tribunal did not ask the wrong question or conduct an impermissible merits review by considering whether the available material or evidence supported essential elements of the appellants' complaints. The power in s 22(3)(b) required a forward-looking assessment of whether the complaints had sufficient substance to justify conciliation and, if necessary, review. Because the material did not support that the appellants had applied for TPD cover or that the trustee had represented that their initial contributions would fund ongoing insurance and retirement benefits, the Tribunal was entitled to think the complaints were lacking in substance and to treat them as withdrawn.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Applications Concerning Decisions of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law' 'superannuation Complaints' 'tribunal Power to Treat Complaint as Withdrawn' 'lacking in Substance' 'conciliation and Review' 'total and Permanent Disability Insurance']
['administrative Law' 'superannuation' 'insurance'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law' 'superannuation Complaints' 'tribunal Power to Treat Complaint as Withdrawn' 'lacking in Substance' 'conciliation and Review' 'total and Permanent Disability Insurance']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Applications Concerning Decisions of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal made a jurisdictional error or error of law in concluding that a complaint unsupported by the evidence was "lacking in substance" under s 22(3)(b) of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth).' "Whether the Tribunal's consideration of the evidence supporting the complaints amounted to an impermissible merits review before conciliation." "Whether the primary judge erred in upholding the Tribunal's decision to treat the complaints as withdrawn."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not ask the wrong question or conduct an impermissible merits review by considering whether the available material or evidence supported essential elements of the appellants' complaints. The power in s 22(3)(b) required a forward-looking assessment of whether the complaints had sufficient substance to justify conciliation and, if necessary, review. Because the material did not support that the appellants had applied for TPD cover or that the trustee had represented that their initial contributions would fund ongoing insurance and retirement benefits, the Tribunal was entitled to think the complaints were lacking in substance and to treat them as withdrawn.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.']