By Darryl Browne -
Key decisions
- D14-15\090 [2014] SCTA 233
- Judith Betty Green and Mary Lynette Carter In Their Capacities as Joint Executors of the Estate of the late Mary Ellen Nancarrow v Nancarrow [2015] WASC 18
- Hornsby v Hornsby (No 2)[2014] WASC 434
- Calvert v Badenach [2014] TASSC 61
- Hodge v De Pasquale [2014] VSC 413
- El Sayed v El Hawach [2015] NSWCA 26
- Salmon v Osmond [2015] NSWCA 42
- Magur v Brydon [2014] NSWSC 1931
- Munro v Munro [2015] QSC 61
- Rea Costello (Deceased) [2014] SASC 134
- Re Maria Elizabeth Rudd; ex parte Prince [2015] WASC 107
- Snow v Snow [2015] NSWSC 90
- Re Estate of the Late Tanju (Andrew) Assim; Application of Ayleen Assim and Elise Assim [2015] NSWSC 337
- In Re the Will of Fernando Masci [2014] QSC 281
Comments from Superannuation Complaints Tribunal
There are five aspects of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal’s decision in D14-15\090 [2014] SCTA 233 that warrant attention. Firstly, the Tribunal has reminded that the time period for a complaint against a trustee’s decision does not commence until the claimant is notified of the trustee’s decision and the prescribed period to lodge an objection. Secondly, the fact that the trustee has paid the death benefit does not inhibit the Tribunal ordering payment of the death benefit to someone else and neither does the non-recoverability of the first payment. Thirdly, the Tribunal’s hearing is de novo. It is not restricted by the material before the trustee. A party is not confined by the manner in which it addressed issues before the trustee. Fourthly, because it makes administrative rather than judicial decisions, it does not decide the law, its earlier decisions are not binding precedents and there is no impediment to it not following earlier Tribunal decisions. Each application is determined on its merits. Fifthly, an interdependency relationship was not established by sharing residence as a matter of convenience and to make accommodation more affordable.
