Telstra Super Pty Ltd v Flegeltaub

(2000) 2 VR 276; [2000] VSCA 180

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Trusts
2. › Superannuation trusts
3. › Entitlement to benefit
4. › Total and Permanent Invalidity
5. › Construction of definition
6. › Whether 'unreasonable refusal to submit to treatment' must be for purpose of causing benefit to be payable
7. › Whether standalone ground of exclusion
1. Trusts
2. › Superannuation trusts
3. › Trustee's duties
4. › Formation of opinion on question of fact
5. › Distinction from exercise of discretionary power
6. › Grounds on which trustee's decision may be challenged
7. › Whether trustee obliged to give member opportunity to provide information
1. Trusts
2. › Powers and discretions
3. › Judicial review of trustee's decisions
4. › Karger v Paul grounds
5. › Application to fiduciary obligation to form opinion
6. › Whether additional grounds of review apply

Quick Take

Where a superannuation trust deed defines 'Total and Permanent Invalidity' with an exclusion for 'deliberate action or inaction for the purpose of causing a benefit to be payable, including without limitation what the Trustee considers to be an unreasonable refusal to submit to treatment', the unreasonable refusal to submit to treatment is a standalone ground of exclusion and need not be shown to have been for the improper purpose of securing a benefit. The Karger v Paul duties (good faith, real and genuine consideration, proper purpose) apply to a trustee's obligation to form an opinion on a question of fact bearing on entitlement, but work out differently in practice from the exercise of a discretionary power. A court may infer breach of duty if the decision is one no reasonable trustee could make on the material before it. The question whether additional administrative law-style grounds of review apply to such decisions was left open.