Jo Gedeon v First State Super Trustee Corporation [2005] NSWIRComm 62

Jo Gedeon v First State Super Trustee Corporation [2005] NSWIRComm 62

The appellant suffers multifactorial disabilities, including physical restriction, chronic pain, morphine addiction, and psychological impairment, preventing him from working in his own occupation or any other occupation to which he is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience. The medical evidence, deemed satisfactory, establishes he is unlikely ever to be employed or attend any such occupation. Trustee's exercise of discretion must be genuine and not arbitrary; the preponderance of evidence supports the appellant's claim for TPD benefits.

Parties
Appellant: Jo Gedeon; Respondent: First State Super Trustee Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Total and Permanent Disability Benefits, Superannuation Appeals, Definition of Occupation, Fiduciary Duty, TPD Policy Interpretation
Industrial Relations Superannuation Insurance Law Total and Permanent Disability Benefits Superannuation Appeals Definition of Occupation Fiduciary Duty TPD Policy Interpretation

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jo Gedeon

Appellant

First State Super Trustee Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether appellant meets the definition of Total and Permanent Disablement under superannuation policy
  2. 2 whether trustee exercised discretion in good faith and with genuine consideration
  3. 3 interpretation of 'reasonably suited by education, training or experience'

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant suffers multifactorial disabilities, including physical restriction, chronic pain, morphine addiction, and psychological impairment, preventing him from working in his own occupation or any other occupation to which he is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience. The medical evidence, deemed satisfactory, establishes he is unlikely ever to be employed or attend any such occupation. Trustee's exercise of discretion must be genuine and not arbitrary; the preponderance of evidence supports the appellant's claim for TPD benefits.

Court Disposition

appeal upheld

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs assessed in accordance with the Legal Profession Act in default of agreement.