Daley v SAS Trustee Corporation

(2016) 92 NSWLR 525; [2016] NSWCA 111

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Superannuation
2. › Police superannuation
3. › Entitlement to additional hurt-on-duty pension
4. › Backdating of additional amount
5. › Whether failure to request backdating in application to trustee precludes standing to seek backdating in District Court
6. › Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 10(1A)(b), 10(1D), 21(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construing jurisdiction-conferring statute
3. › Meaning of 'person aggrieved'
4. › Whether phrase should be given restrictive or broad interpretation
5. › Whether standing dependent on issues raised before primary decision-maker
6. › Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), s 21(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construing facultative provision
3. › Provision requiring decision on 'real merits and justice of the case'
4. › Interaction with right of appeal on point of law
5. › Whether conflicting provisions should be reconciled
6. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 142J, 142N
1. Appeal
2. › Statutory appeal
3. › Appeal on point of law
4. › Distinction between questions of fact and questions of law
5. › Whether construction of ordinary English word in statute raises question of law
6. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 142N

Quick Take

A person applying to the District Court under s 21(1) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW) is not confined to the issues raised in their application to the STC; the failure to complete a question on an application form does not preclude standing as a 'person aggrieved'. The s 21(1) jurisdiction is a hearing de novo entitling the applicant to have the matter determined afresh. However, Basten JA's dissent raises the possibility that delay and failure to raise issues before the STC may be relevant discretionary considerations even in a de novo hearing.