Tratter v Aware Super [2023] FCA 491

Tratter v Aware Super [2023] FCA 491

AFCA addressed the correct statutory test, determined dependency status and expectations of support for both parties, and explained why the trustee's apportionment was within the range of decisions that were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances; AFCA did not err in law, nor fail to give adequate reasons, and the application must therefore be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Renate Tratter; First Respondent: Aware Super (formerly First State Super); Second Respondent: Chris Orfanidis; Third Respondent: Australian Financial Complaints Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Statutory Judicial Review (appeal on Question of Law) / Judgment on Appeal From AFCA Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Superannuation Death Benefit Apportionment, Statutory Review of AFCA Decision, Jurisdiction and Scope of AFCA, Adequacy of Reasons, Trustee Discretion Under Superannuation Fund Rules
Superannuation Corporations Law Administrative Law Superannuation Death Benefit Apportionment Statutory Review of AFCA Decision Jurisdiction and Scope of AFCA Adequacy of Reasons Trustee Discretion Under Superannuation Fund Rules

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renate Tratter

Applicant

Aware Super (formerly First State Super)

First Respondent

Chris Orfanidis

Second Respondent

Australian Financial Complaints Authority

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Judicial Review (appeal on Question of Law) / Judgment on Appeal From AFCA Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct test under s 1055 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for reviewing an AFCA affirmation of trustee apportionment of a superannuation death benefit?
  2. 2 Did AFCA err in asking the wrong question by focusing on whether the decision was open to the trustee rather than if it was fair and reasonable in its operation?
  3. 3 Did AFCA fail to provide adequate reasons for its determination?

Ratio Decidendi

AFCA addressed the correct statutory test, determined dependency status and expectations of support for both parties, and explained why the trustee's apportionment was within the range of decisions that were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances; AFCA did not err in law, nor fail to give adequate reasons, and the application must therefore be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed
  • There is no order as to costs