Hill v Zuda Pty LtdCitation:[2022] HCA 21Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:15 Jun 2022Case Number:P48/2021Read more

Hill v Zuda Pty LtdCitation:[2022] HCA 21Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:15 Jun 2022Case Number:P48/2021Read more

Regulation 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth) does not apply to self managed superannuation funds; therefore, the validity of a binding death benefit nomination in a SMSF is determined by the trust deed and general law.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Binding Death Benefit Nomination, Application of Regulations to Smsfs, Obiter Dicta, Precedent

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Does regulation 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth) apply to self managed superannuation funds?
  2. 2 Is a binding death benefit nomination clause in a SMSF trust deed valid if it does not comply with reg 6.17A?

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth) does not apply to self managed superannuation funds; therefore, the validity of a binding death benefit nomination in a SMSF is determined by the trust deed and general law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.