Bennett v SAS Trustee Corporation and anor [2008] NSWIRComm 203

Bennett v SAS Trustee Corporation and anor [2008] NSWIRComm 203

The totality of the evidence demonstrated that Margaret Schofield was the de facto partner of Paul Russell Bennett from May 1997 until his death, sharing a home, finances, emotional attachment, and family life; temporary separation did not interrupt the relationship; thus, the decision to pay her a superannuation allowance pension under the relevant legislation was warranted.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Graham Bennett; First Respondent: SAS Trustee Corporation; Second Respondent: Margaret Schofield (also Shoebridge)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Superannuation Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
De Facto Relationships, Superannuation Entitlements, Appeal Procedure
Superannuation Employment De Facto Relationships Superannuation Entitlements Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Graham Bennett

Appellant

SAS Trustee Corporation

First Respondent

Margaret Schofield (also Shoebridge)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Superannuation Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Margaret Schofield was the de facto partner of the late Paul Russell Bennett at the time of his death and for at least the preceding three years
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was warranted in determining to pay the second respondent a superannuation allowance pension
  3. 3 Allegations of fraud, deceit, and errors in documentary evidence relating to the relationship status

Ratio Decidendi

The totality of the evidence demonstrated that Margaret Schofield was the de facto partner of Paul Russell Bennett from May 1997 until his death, sharing a home, finances, emotional attachment, and family life; temporary separation did not interrupt the relationship; thus, the decision to pay her a superannuation allowance pension under the relevant legislation was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are reserved, liberty to apply with respect to costs which should be exercised within one month of this date.