Madsen v Power [2010] FCA 339 (26 March 2010)

Last Updated: 9 April 2010

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Madsen v Power [2010] FCA 339

Citation:		Madsen v Power [2010] FCA 339
Parties:		SARA MADSEN (NEE POPE) v FIONA POWER and SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL
File number(s):		QUD 12 of 2010
Judges:		SPENDER J
Date of judgment:		26 March 2010
Date of hearing:	26 March 2010
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr A Harding
Solicitor for the Applicant:	McCullough Robertson
Counsel for the Respondents:	The respondents did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 12 of 2010

BETWEEN:

SARA MADSEN (NEE POPE) Applicant

AND:	FIONA POWER First Respondent SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 MARCH 2010
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. I order the decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal be set aside.
2. The complaint be remitted to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to be dealt with according to law.
3. In that consideration, the applicant be entitled to put further material before the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, directed to establishing that her complaint has merit and deposing to information on which she argues that she has established an interdependent relationship with the deceased, and that she meets the definition of “dependant”.
   

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 12 of 2010

BETWEEN:

SARA MADSEN (NEE POPE) Applicant

AND:	FIONA POWER First Respondent SUPERANNUATION COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	26 MARCH 2010
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. It seems to me clear on the material before me that I do not have to address every ground. It seems to me to be plain from the material to which I have been taken that, in the case of the applicant, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (the SCT) proceeded on quite a different basis from that in respect of Ms McPherson, her sister.
2. The steps taken by the SCT in respect of Ms McPherson’s complaint and the information provided to her, when compared with the information was provided to the applicant, indicates that the SCT’s conclusion in the case of the applicant, when compared with its conclusion concerning her sister, is such that it did not really address the matters that the applicant had raised. There was not a proper consideration of whether the facts, or the facts on further inquiry, were such as to bring her within the requirement of having an interdependency relationship.
3. I have had regard to the entirety of the applicant’s submissions, and it seems plain to me that, on those circumstances, I ought to make the order that the applicant proposes in the last paragraph of those submissions.
4. It is unfortunate that there is no contradictor to this application, but it seems to me, having regard to the fact that your client’s complaint was dismissed at an early stage as being misconceived, for the reason which the SCT expressed in its dealings with the applicant, indicates that the SCT erred in that peremptory dismissal of the complaint. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to permit proper inquiry on proper material to be conducted by the SCT.
5. Having regard to the material identified in the applicant’s submissions, it is appropriate that I order the decision of the SCT be set aside, and the complaint be remitted to the SCT, to deal with according to law.
6. It seems to me that, in that consideration, the applicant be entitled to put further material before the SCT directed to establishing that her complaint has merit, and deposing to information on which she argues that she has established an interdependent relationship with the deceased, and that she meets the definition of “dependent.”
   

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.

Associate:

Dated: 7 April 2010