Jones v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2011] FCA 1255

Jones v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2011] FCA 1255

Although the applicant had authorised Moore Law to send and receive correspondence on his behalf, s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) could only operate if service by post was authorised. Section 28A authorised service by post on the applicant only by sending the document to his last known residential or business address. The 13 October 2008 letter was addressed to the applicant's solicitor at Moore Law, not to the applicant at his residential or business address, so it did not constitute service by post authorised by s 28A and could not be deemed served under s 29. The applicant was therefore entitled to a declaration that his complaint dated 5 January 2009 was made within the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration and Writ of Mandamus in Relation to a Decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal / Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
The Court declared that the applicant made his complaint to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal within the prescribed period; mandamus, costs and any other orders were reserved for further hearing.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Fact' 'prescribed Period for Complaint' 'written Notice of Trustee Decision' 'service by Post' 'writ of Mandamus']
['administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'superannuation'] ['jurisdictional Fact' 'prescribed Period for Complaint' 'written Notice of Trustee Decision' 'service by Post' 'writ of Mandamus']

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 Declaration and Writ of Mandamus in Relation to a Decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal / Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's complaint to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal was made within the prescribed period for the purposes of subsections 14(3) and 14(4) of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth)." "Whether the trustee's letter dated 13 October 2008 addressed to the applicant's solicitors gave the applicant written notice within subsection 14(3) of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth)." 'Whether s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) applied to deem service of the letter by post.' "Whether s 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) authorised service by post on the applicant's solicitors." 'Whether non-delivery of the 13 October 2008 letter had been proved.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant had authorised Moore Law to send and receive correspondence on his behalf, s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) could only operate if service by post was authorised. Section 28A authorised service by post on the applicant only by sending the document to his last known residential or business address. The 13 October 2008 letter was addressed to the applicant's solicitor at Moore Law, not to the applicant at his residential or business address, so it did not constitute service by post authorised by s 28A and could not be deemed served under s 29. The applicant was therefore entitled to a declaration that his complaint dated 5 January 2009 was made within the...

Court Disposition

The Court declared that the applicant made his complaint to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal within the prescribed period; mandamus, costs and any other orders were reserved for further hearing.

Orders

  • ['The applicant made his complaint dated 5 January 2009 to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal within the prescribed period for the purposes of subsections 14(3) and 14(4) of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth).' 'The parties be heard as to whether an order in the nature of a writ of...