Boland v SAS Trustee Corporation

[2026] NSWSC 232

Supreme Court of NSW

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial Review
3. › Mandamus — refusal — no duty to determine further application
1. Superannuation
2. › Police Superannuation Scheme
3. › Certification of incapacity — s 10B(2) — whether power exercisable more than once
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Functus Officio
3. › Power exhausted by first exercise — contrary intention — statutory scheme promoting finality
1. Administrative Law
2. › Statutory Powers
3. › Whether statutory power exercisable from time to time — Interpretation Act 1987 s 48 — contrary intention

Quick Take

The Court held that the STC has neither the power nor the duty to determine a further application under s 10B(2) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 where a prior application for the same former member has been finally determined, including through the appellate process. Applying and extending the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Wilson (which concerned s 10B(1)) to s 10B(2), Price AJA concluded that the statutory scheme promotes finality and certainty, with the time limits in s 10B(2)(a) and the review period in s 21(1) reflecting a policy of drawing lines around the potential liability of the fund. The decision confirms that permitting a former member to reagitate factual and medical questions about capacity at the time of resignation, some 20 years after an unsuccessful appeal, would render nugatory the statutory appeal time limits and displace principles of res judicata and finality of judgments.