FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd [2000] FCA 502 JUDGE: HIGGINS J DATE OF ORDER: 11 APRIL 2000 WHERE MADE: CANBERRA IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AG 93 of 1997 DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN: KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS AND ANOTHER APPLICANT AND: AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT AND: JUSTIN COLLINS AND NICHOLAS COLLINS SECOND RESPONDENT DATE OF ORDER: 11 APRIL 2000 WHERE MADE: CANBERRA THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for a stay of proceedings is declined. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AG 93 of 1997 DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN: KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS AND ANOTHER APPLICANT AND: AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT AND: JUSTIN COLLINS AND NICHOLAS COLLINS SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: HIGGINS J DATE: 11 APRIL 2000 PLACE: CANBERRA EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 There is nothing to prevent the applicants for a stay of proceeding appealing against the decision of Finn J. There is also nothing to prevent the applicants taking such proceedings as may be appropriate under the Family Provision Act whether it be of New South Wales or Victoria. It seems unlikely to be that of the Australian Capital Territory given the addresses of the parties and the place where the trustees resided for the purpose of making a determination. Whether or not such an application would be competent after this lapse of time, I do not know. 2 It may well be that an extension of time could or might be granted on the grounds as shown. However, the present proceedings are not appropriate for that purpose. The present proceedings are an application for a stay of Finn J's decision to dismiss an appeal from the decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal which in turn had, following Merkel J's decision, rejected a complaint made by the applicants against a determination that the superannuation benefits be divided into two and paid to two of the four children of the deceased. Now, whatever be the merits of the appeal, I say nothing about that, it does seem to me that a stay would simply serve no useful purpose and there is nothing to stay. 3 Whether or not there may be some possible stay of proceedings against the two remaining children in the event that some order is sought to include payments of superannuation in the estate for the purpose of the Family Provision Act of whatever State or Territory may be relevant, requiring them perhaps to put aside some of the funds which may be distributed to them, I do not know but, then again, that is a hypothetical question. So, in short, on the information I currently have the application for stay is declined. 4 I make the usual order as to costs. That is, that the applicant pay the respondents costs of and incidental to this application I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Higgins Associate: Dated: 11 April 2000 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr C Kilduff Solicitor for the Applicant: G J Piscioneri & Co. Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr G Stretton Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mallesons Stephen Jaques Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr D Harper Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Abbott Tout Harper & Blain Date of Hearing: 11 APRIL 2000 Date of Judgment: 11 APRIL 2000