Williams v IS Industry Fund Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 219

Williams v IS Industry Fund Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 219

The appeal failed because the Tribunal lawfully identified and considered the circumstances relevant to the decisive criterion of whether Mr Williams and his son "live[d] together" under s 10A(1)(b). On the facts found, Joseph had returned to his father's home for a brief holiday after living and working abroad and intended to resume overseas work; this did not amount to living together or to temporarily living apart. Once the Tribunal found that the living-together criterion was not satisfied, it was unnecessary to decide the other cumulative criteria in s 10A(1), and reg 1.04AAAA(1)(a) required consideration of listed matters only where relevant. The primary judge therefore made no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of a Single Judge of the Federal Court Upholding a Decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Concerning Payment of a Superannuation Death Benefit / Full Court Appeal Under S 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth); Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['interdependency Relationship' 'superannuation Death Benefit' 'fair and Reasonable Trustee Decision' 'meaning of Live Together' 'relevant Considerations' 'error of Law' 'temporarily Living Apart']
['superannuation' 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['interdependency Relationship' 'superannuation Death Benefit' 'fair and Reasonable Trustee Decision' 'meaning of Live Together' 'relevant Considerations' 'error of Law' 'temporarily Living Apart']

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

Appeal From a Decision of a Single Judge of the Federal Court Upholding a Decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Concerning Payment of a Superannuation Death Benefit / Full Court Appeal Under S 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth); Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred by failing to find that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal failed to make findings about and take into account financial support, domestic support, personal care and emotional support under reg 1.04AAAA(1)(a) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal misconstrued the phrase "live together" in s 10A(1)(b) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) as requiring physical cohabitation in one dwelling.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider whether Mr Williams and his son were temporarily living apart for the purposes of reg 1.04AAAA(3).' 'Whether the Tribunal asked the correct question under s 10A(2)(c) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) and reg 1.04AAAA(4)(c) concerning disability and the deceased being in hospital immediately prior to death.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Tribunal lawfully identified and considered the circumstances relevant to the decisive criterion of whether Mr Williams and his son "live[d] together" under s 10A(1)(b). On the facts found, Joseph had returned to his father's home for a brief holiday after living and working abroad and intended to resume overseas work; this did not amount to living together or to temporarily living apart. Once the Tribunal found that the living-together criterion was not satisfied, it was unnecessary to decide the other cumulative criteria in s 10A(1), and reg 1.04AAAA(1)(a) required consideration of listed matters only where relevant. The primary judge therefore made no...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The further amended notice of appeal filed 6 November 2018 be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs.']