Matsen v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2017] FCA 1604

Matsen v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2017] FCA 1604

The application failed because the material relied on by Mr Matsen did not show incapacity, duress, or any other contractual or equitable ground for setting aside the consent orders. The alleged missing submissions were either before the primary judge or substantively before her and would not have affected the result. The proposed appeal was hopeless and vexatious, so there was no basis for an extension of time or leave to appeal. Because Ms Bennett's offer to compromise was received and not accepted and represented a real compromise, the specified costs consequences followed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Matsen V Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2017] FCA 765
Outcome
The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed, and the interlocutory applications were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'setting Aside Consent Orders' 'duress' 'capacity to Consent' 'offer to Compromise' 'indemnity Costs']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'superannuation' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'setting Aside Consent Orders' 'duress' 'capacity to Consent' 'offer to Compromise' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Matsen V Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2017] FCA 765

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time and leave to appeal from the refusal to set aside consent orders.' "Whether the primary judge erred in finding no medical evidence affected the applicant's ability to consent to the consent orders." 'Whether the applicant established a basis, including duress in mediation, to set aside final consent orders.' "Whether alleged missing submissions or later medical and taxation material could have affected the primary judge's decision." "Whether the third respondent's offer to compromise justified party and party costs up to 11.00am on 22 August 2017 and indemnity costs thereafter."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the material relied on by Mr Matsen did not show incapacity, duress, or any other contractual or equitable ground for setting aside the consent orders. The alleged missing submissions were either before the primary judge or substantively before her and would not have affected the result. The proposed appeal was hopeless and vexatious, so there was no basis for an extension of time or leave to appeal. Because Ms Bennett's offer to compromise was received and not accepted and represented a real compromise, the specified costs consequences followed.

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed, and the interlocutory applications were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the second respondent of a submitting appearance.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the third respondent on a party and party basis up to 11.00am on 22 August 2017 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.' 'The...