Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler [1999] HCA 28

High Court of Australia Gleeson CJ Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler [1999] HCA 28

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Orders 1, 2(a), and 2(b) of the orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court and entered on 20 March 1998 set aside.

3. Remit the proceeding to the Full Court of the Federal Court for further consideration in conformity with the reasons for judgment of this Court.

4. Appellant to pay the costs of the first respondents.

Cur adv vult

The following written judgments were delivered:—

17 June 1999 Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ.

1. The Federal Court of Australia had before it a proceeding identified in s 46(1) of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 Cth (the Complaints Act) as an appeal on a question of law from a determination of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (the Tribunal), a body established by s 6 of that statute. The Tribunal had exercised the powers conferred by s 37 of the Complaints Act. These included all the powers, obligations and discretions conferred on the trustees of the fund the subject of the complaint to the Tribunal.

2. The notice of appeal to the Federal Court included a ground that all provisions in the Complaints Act and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 Cth (the Supervision Act) enabling decisions to be made by the Tribunal which are deemed to be trustees' decisions or providing for those decisions to be enforced are invalid. A judge of the Federal Court, acting pursuant to s 25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Cth (the Federal Court Act), reserved a question for the consideration of a Full Court which presented an issue in different terms, limited to one section of the Complaints Act and divorced from a consideration of the particular private rights, established by the general law, upon which the Tribunal determination had operated in the instant case. The question was: