David Feint v First State Super FSS Trustee Corporation [2007] NSWIRComm 246

David Feint v First State Super FSS Trustee Corporation [2007] NSWIRComm 246

The Commission was seized with jurisdiction because a dispute between the appellant and respondent arose on or about 26 September 2005, before the commencement of the repeal-related transitional provisions, so the dispute continued to be dealt with under the former First State Superannuation Act 1992 and Superannuation Administration Act 1996. However, the appeal was premature because the dispute had not yet been determined in accordance with the Trust Deed and Rules by the Claims Review Committee, and such a determination was necessary to activate the appellant's appeal rights under s 40.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Superannuation Appeal / Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
The Commission ruled that it had jurisdiction by virtue of the dispute arising before 1 May 2006, but the appeal was premature because the dispute had not been determined by the Claims Review Committee; costs were left to be determined.
Legal Topics
['transitional Provisions' 'determination of Disputes' 'total and Permanent Disablement Benefits' 'trust Deed and Scheme Rules' 'time for Appeal']
['superannuation Law' 'administrative Law' 'industrial Court Jurisdiction'] ['transitional Provisions' 'determination of Disputes' 'total and Permanent Disablement Benefits' 'trust Deed and Scheme Rules' 'time for Appeal']

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

Superannuation Appeal / Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Industrial Court of New South Wales had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellant's appeal under s 40 of the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 after repeal of that provision." 'Whether a dispute between the appellant and respondent arose before 1 May 2006 for the purposes of the transitional provisions in Schedule 3 of the First State Superannuation Act 1992.' "Whether the respondent's letter rejecting the TPD claim on 26 September 2005 constituted a determination under ss 22 and 40 of the Superannuation Administration Act 1996." 'Whether the appellant was required to have the dispute determined by the Claims Review Committee under the Trust Deed and Rules before appealing to the Commission.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission was seized with jurisdiction because a dispute between the appellant and respondent arose on or about 26 September 2005, before the commencement of the repeal-related transitional provisions, so the dispute continued to be dealt with under the former First State Superannuation Act 1992 and Superannuation Administration Act 1996. However, the appeal was premature because the dispute had not yet been determined in accordance with the Trust Deed and Rules by the Claims Review Committee, and such a determination was necessary to activate the appellant's appeal rights under s 40.

Court Disposition

The Commission ruled that it had jurisdiction by virtue of the dispute arising before 1 May 2006, but the appeal was premature because the dispute had not been determined by the Claims Review Committee; costs were left to be determined.

Orders

  • ['The appellant must formally request that the dispute be determined by the Claims Review Committee of the respondent before any appeal to the Commission can proceed.' 'If the Claims Review Committee determines the dispute adversely to the appellant, that determination may be appealed to the Commission under s 40 of...