Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 21

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ,

GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON, EDELMAN, STEWARD AND GLEESON JJ

CLAIRE ELIZABETH HILL APPELLANT

AND

ZUDA PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLLY

SUPERANNUATION FUND & ORS RESPONDENTS

Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd

[2022] HCA 21

Date of Hearing: 5 April 2022

Date of Judgment: 15 June 2022

P48/2021

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Representation

B W Ashdown for the appellant (instructed by Eastwood Law)

M D Cuerden SC with A P Hershowitz for the respondents (instructed by Lawton Gillon)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd

Superannuation – Self managed superannuation fund – Binding death benefit nomination – Where reg 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth) prescribed standards for, relevantly, regulated superannuation funds for payment of member's superannuation benefits to nominated person on or after member's death – Where trust deed for self managed superannuation fund amended to insert "binding death benefit nomination" clause directing trustee as to payment of member's benefits upon member's death – Where appellant challenged validity of binding death benefit nomination clause on basis it did not comply with requirements of reg 6.17A – Whether reg 6.17A applied to self managed superannuation funds.

Precedent – Intermediate appellate courts – Obiter dicta of intermediate appellate courts – Decision-making principles in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89.

Words and phrases – "binding death benefit nomination", "compelling reason", "intermediate appellate court", "obiter dicta", "plainly wrong", "regulated superannuation fund", "self managed superannuation fund", "seriously considered dicta", "SMSF", "superannuation".