Chapman v QSuper Board [2020] FCA 88

Chapman v QSuper Board [2020] FCA 88

The Tribunal did not err in law in affirming the Trustee's decision, as the entitlement to payment and to interest did not arise until the Trustee was satisfied, on medical evidence, that the applicant suffered total and permanent disablement. The Tribunal took relevant considerations into account and did not rely on irrelevant considerations. Its determination was fair and reasonable and supported by the insurance terms and statutory scheme.

Parties
Applicant: Damien Robert Chapman; First Respondent: QSuper Board; Second Respondent: Superannuation Complaints Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trustee's Discretion, Interest on Superannuation Payments, Errors of Law in Tribunal Decisions, Interpretation of Insurance Terms
Superannuation Administrative Law Trustee's Discretion Interest on Superannuation Payments Errors of Law in Tribunal Decisions Interpretation of Insurance Terms

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damien Robert Chapman

Applicant

QSuper Board

First Respondent

Superannuation Complaints Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal misconstrued terms of insurance
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal had regard to irrelevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law in affirming the Trustee's decision, as the entitlement to payment and to interest did not arise until the Trustee was satisfied, on medical evidence, that the applicant suffered total and permanent disablement. The Tribunal took relevant considerations into account and did not rely on irrelevant considerations. Its determination was fair and reasonable and supported by the insurance terms and statutory scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.