Retirement Benefits Fund Board v David Andrew Hingston

(1997) 7 Tas R 134; [1997] TASSC 66

Supreme Court of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Superannuation
2. › Public service funds
3. › Invalidity benefits
4. › Total and permanent incapacity
5. › Meaning of 'unfit to work in a position for which the employee is reasonably qualified by education, training or experience and for which he or she may be required to accept'
6. › Whether expression refers to positions under employee's current employment or positions objectively reasonable to accept
7. › Retirement Benefits Regulations 1994 (Tas), regs 3(1), 96
1. Statutes
2. › Delegated legislation
3. › Validity of regulations
4. › General regulation-making power
5. › Whether power to make regulations 'for the purposes of this Act' authorises conferral of jurisdiction on Supreme Court
6. › Whether regulation conferring jurisdiction on court is ultra vires
7. › Retirement Benefits Act 1993 (Tas), s 29(1)
8. › Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas), s 47(1)
1. Statutes
2. › Delegated legislation
3. › Validity of regulations
4. › Specific regulation-making power
5. › Whether power to 'authorise any matter or thing to be from time to time determined ... by any person or body specified in the regulations' authorises conferral of jurisdiction on Supreme Court
6. › Retirement Benefits Act 1993 (Tas), s 29(10)

Quick Take

The expression 'for which he or she may be required to accept' in the definition of 'invalidity' in reg 3(1) of the Retirement Benefits Regulations 1994 (Tas) connotes an objective standard — whether it would be reasonable to require the employee to accept the position — and does not refer to positions the employee's current employer has power to compel acceptance of. Regulation 106, which purported to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to review Board determinations, is ultra vires the Retirement Benefits Act 1993 (Tas).