Sadick v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2007] FCA 1268

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sadick v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2007] FCA 1268

MOHAMED KASSIM JAFAR SADICK v SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL, CARE SUPER PTY LTD AND ABDUL RAHMAN VID 1052 OF 2006

NORTH J

18 JULY 2007

MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 1052 OF 2006

BETWEEN: MOHAMED KASSIM JAFAR SADICK

Applicant

AND: SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

CARE SUPER PTY LTD

Second Respondent

ABDUL RAHMAN

Third Respondent

JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 18 JULY 2007

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave is granted to the appellant to amend the notice of appeal by deleting the questions of law presently appearing and substituting therefore the question, 'Whether the first respondent erred in holding that the third respondent was a dependent of the deceased?' 2. The appeal is dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the second and third respondents' costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 1052 OF 2006

BETWEEN: MOHAMED KASSIM JAFAR SADICK

Applicant

AND: SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

CARE SUPER PTY LTD

Second Respondent

ABDUL RAHMAN

Third Respondent

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 18 JULY 2007

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the court is an appeal against a determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal made on 22 August 2007. The appeal is brought under s 46 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (the Complaints Act) which provides that a party may appeal to the Federal Court on a question of law from a determination of the Tribunal. 2 The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under s 37(6) of the Complaints Act to determine whether the decision of Care Super Pty Ltd (the trustee), the second respondent, was fair and reasonable. Section 37(6) provides as follows: (6) The Tribunal must affirm a decision referred to under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the decision, in its operation in relation to: (a) the complainant; and (b) so far as concerns a complaint regarding the payment of a death benefit—any person (other than the complainant, a trustee, insurer or decision‑maker) who: (i) has become a party to the complaint; and (ii) has an interest in the death benefit or claims to be, or to be entitled to benefits through, a person having an interest in the death benefit; was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. 3 The Tribunal affirmed the trustee's decision to pay to the third respondent, Abdul Rahman (the father), death benefits amounting to $55,337 as at 18 August 2005. The death benefit arose under a policy held by Muna Rahman who died by her own hand on 22 May 2003. Abdul Rahman is the father of the deceased and was appointed her legal personal representative. 4 At the time of her death, Muna Rahman was married to Mohamed Sadick, the appellant (the husband). However, on the previous day, she obtained a decree nisi for the dissolution of her marriage. The decree had not become absolute at the time of her death.