Wan v BT Funds Management Limited [2022] FCAFC 189

Wan v BT Funds Management Limited [2022] FCAFC 189

Neither the Authority nor the primary judge committed legal error in determining that the appellant was not a 'dependant' under the SIS Act; the mechanisms for review were properly applied, the expressions 'live together' and 'lives with' were construed correctly, and the consideration of the appellant's partial share in the estate was permissible. The appeal failed on all grounds and was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Jing Wan; First Respondent: BT Funds Management Limited; Second Respondent: Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited; Third Respondent: Matthias Guy Derody
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Superannuation Death Benefits, Trustee Discretion, Definition of Dependant, Judicial Review, Distribution of Estate
Superannuation Commercial Law Corporations Law Superannuation Death Benefits Trustee Discretion Definition of Dependant Judicial Review Distribution of Estate

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jing Wan

Appellant

BT Funds Management Limited

First Respondent

Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited

Second Respondent

Matthias Guy Derody

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was a 'dependant' of the deceased under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge and the Authority erred in the construction of 'lives with'/'live together'
  3. 3 Whether consideration of the appellant's share in the estate was permissible

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the Authority nor the primary judge committed legal error in determining that the appellant was not a 'dependant' under the SIS Act; the mechanisms for review were properly applied, the expressions 'live together' and 'lives with' were construed correctly, and the consideration of the appellant's partial share in the estate was permissible. The appeal failed on all grounds and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the third respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or assessed.