Howitt-Steven v Unisuper Limited [2001] FCA 1599

Howitt-Steven v Unisuper Limited [2001] FCA 1599

The Tribunal did not make any legal error warranting intervention. It was entitled to conduct the review on the papers without denying procedural fairness, had attempted conciliation and could not compel the Trustee to participate, was not obliged to join medical practitioners, did consider special or exceptional circumstances, correctly treated cl B.13 as containing two separate bases for restriction of benefits, did not impose a legal onus of proof on the Applicant, and was not shown to have failed to consider evidence it was bound to consider. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Federal Court on a Question of Law From a Determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Under S 46 of the Act / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['disability Benefits' 'pre Existing Medical Condition' 'superannuation Complaints Tribunal Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'conciliation' 'onus of Proof' 'construction of Trust Deed']
['superannuation' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Benefits' 'pre Existing Medical Condition' 'superannuation Complaints Tribunal Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'conciliation' 'onus of Proof' 'construction of Trust Deed']

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 to the Federal Court on a Question of Law From a Determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Under S 46 of the Act / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law by failing to conduct an oral hearing before reaching its decision' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law by failing to try to settle the complaint by conciliation' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law by failing to join certain medical practitioners as parties to the complaint' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider whether there were special or exceptional circumstances to justify payment of a benefit' 'Whether the Tribunal misconstrued cl B.13 of the SSAU Consolidated Trust Deed' 'Whether the Tribunal wrongly acted on the basis that the Applicant bore an onus of proving proper disclosure' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account evidence that the Applicant was not aware of the condition not disclosed' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the Act and principles of fiduciary duties' "Whether the Tribunal erred in law in taking an adverse view of the Applicant's credit"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not make any legal error warranting intervention. It was entitled to conduct the review on the papers without denying procedural fairness, had attempted conciliation and could not compel the Trustee to participate, was not obliged to join medical practitioners, did consider special or exceptional circumstances, correctly treated cl B.13 as containing two separate bases for restriction of benefits, did not impose a legal onus of proof on the Applicant, and was not shown to have failed to consider evidence it was bound to consider. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']