Davis v Rio Tinto Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 376

Davis v Rio Tinto Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 376

The Tribunal considered the applicant's medical restrictions, work history, practical business and administrative experience, and computer training, and had evidence capable of supporting its finding that he was not unlikely ever to engage in regular remunerative work for which he was reasonably fitted. It applied the correct TPD test in substance, made sufficient findings, and gave sufficient reasons; no error of law was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal on a Question of Law Under S 46 of the Superannuation (resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (cth) From a Determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal / Federal Court Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs in favour of the second respondent only, including reserved costs.
Legal Topics
['total and Permanent Disablement Benefit' 'superannuation Complaints Tribunal Determination' 'meaning of "unlikely"' 'regular Remunerative Work Reasonably Fitted by Education, Training or Experience' 'findings of Fact' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['administrative Law' 'superannuation' 'insurance'] ['total and Permanent Disablement Benefit' 'superannuation Complaints Tribunal Determination' 'meaning of "unlikely"' 'regular Remunerative Work Reasonably Fitted by Education, Training or Experience' 'findings of Fact' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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 on a Question of Law Under S 46 of the Superannuation (resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (cth) From a Determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal / Federal Court Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['When the relevant time was to consider whether the applicant was totally and permanently disabled' 'Whether the Tribunal misconstrued the word "unlikely" in the TPD definition' 'Whether there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to support findings that the applicant had capacity, skills and experience to work in a sedentary occupation' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to make sufficient findings as to incapacity and suitable work' 'Whether the Tribunal misconstrued the trust deed or insurance contract' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to give sufficient reasons']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal considered the applicant's medical restrictions, work history, practical business and administrative experience, and computer training, and had evidence capable of supporting its finding that he was not unlikely ever to engage in regular remunerative work for which he was reasonably fitted. It applied the correct TPD test in substance, made sufficient findings, and gave sufficient reasons; no error of law was shown.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs in favour of the second respondent only, including reserved costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the second respondent, including reserved costs.']