Riseley v Suncorp Portfolio Services Limited [2021] FCA 472

Riseley v Suncorp Portfolio Services Limited [2021] FCA 472

The Tribunal made no jurisdictional error or error of law. In the circumstances, the complaints concerned a course of conduct and many alleged decisions rather than a single discrete trustee decision, so the Tribunal was not required to identify each decision separately. The Tribunal accurately addressed the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Applications for Judicial Review of Decisions of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, Including an Application Pursuant to S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) and an Appeal Under S 44(1) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth). / Final Hearing and Judgment on Applications Challenging Tribunal Decisions to Treat Superannuation Complaints as Withdrawn.
Outcome
Applications dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review of Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Decisions' 'complaints Treated as Withdrawn' 'complaints Lacking in Substance' 'unfair or Unreasonable Trustee Decisions' 'total and Permanent Disability Insurance Cover' 'superannuation Account Administration']
['administrative Law' 'superannuation'] ['judicial Review of Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Decisions' 'complaints Treated as Withdrawn' 'complaints Lacking in Substance' 'unfair or Unreasonable Trustee Decisions' 'total and Permanent Disability Insurance Cover' 'superannuation Account Administration']

Source-derived case record

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

Applications for Judicial Review of Decisions of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, Including an Application Pursuant to S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) and an Appeal Under S 44(1) of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth). / Final Hearing and Judgment on Applications Challenging Tribunal Decisions to Treat Superannuation Complaints as Withdrawn.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to identify the decision about which the complaints were made.' 'Whether the Tribunal misunderstood the nature of its task when considering whether the complaints were lacking in substance under s 22(3)(b) of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal placed an onus on Mr and Mrs Riseley to establish their complaints before conciliation and review.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding there was no evidence that the applicants applied for TPD cover.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding there was no evidence that the initial contributions and investment performance were intended to offset account management and provide a retirement benefit.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal made no jurisdictional error or error of law. In the circumstances, the complaints concerned a course of conduct and many alleged decisions rather than a single discrete trustee decision, so the Tribunal was not required to identify each decision separately. The Tribunal accurately addressed the substance of the complaints, did not misconceive its task or impose an onus on the applicants, and permissibly evaluated whether the material had sufficient substance to justify conciliation and review. Its 'no evidence' findings were correct when read in context: there was no evidence that the applicants applied to the trustee for TPD cover, and no evidence that the trustee intended...

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The applications are dismissed.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the first and third respondents to be assessed if not agreed.']