Now that decision was simply unfair and ‘unreasonable’!

7 min read
7 min read

Case 1:

In this case, the Tribunal ‘called out’ that both the trustee’s staff and the member’s representative appeared to take comparatively rigid, legalistic approaches to a complex and aged matter. This resulted in faulty assumptions, miscommunications and misunderstandings. Most importantly, it also resulted in ‘unfair and unreasonable’ trustee decisions.

The fund provided the member with a disability pension and the governing rules, quite reasonably, required him to provide the trustee with information about his income from personal exertion as that could affect his benefit. The member understood this requirement and, on a number of occasions, he sought and received details about whether various types of income would affect his pension. In 2011 and again in 2015, an anonymous phone caller told the trustee the member was earning unreported income while receiving the pension.

In 2013, the trustee erroneously reported to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) that employer contributions of $18,783.33 had been made in respect of the member for the 2007/08 financial year. This mistake triggered an Excess Contributions Tax Assessment (ETA) in October 2014 which, in turn, resulted in the member engaging his accountant and financial planner to investigate and advise.

In February 2015, the trustee realised its mistake and, consequently, it re-submitted to the ATO in March 2015. As the member had incurred costs in investigating the ETA, he lodged a complaint with the trustee seeking compensation. However, in the process of investigating its error, the trustee became aware that, in another fund, the member had received a $100,000 contribution in the 2007/08 tax year.

The trustee wrote to the member on 30 March 2015 saying it had decided to not give him any compensation for his costs incurred. The same letter asked him for additional information and stated “you failed to declare your income which led to your salary sacrifice contribution of $100,000 for the 2007/2008 financial year”. The letter went on to say he had until 10 April 2015 to provide additional information or “all of your rights with respect to your disablement benefit will automatically cease, in accordance with Clause 41.3” of the trust deed. The trustee ceased paying the pension effective 1 April 2015.

From this point on there were a series of requests for, and exchanges of, information between the trustee’s staff and the member. This included copies of many years tax returns and those tax returns showed no personal exertion income. The member asserted that the trustee’s interpretation of the $100,000 contribution by a company (where the member was a director) was legally incorrect. In other words, he alleged it was not his personal income that had been salary sacrificed as an employer superannuation contribution.

The trustee advised the tribunal that the member had been uncooperative and that the information supplied was contradictory, misleading and implausible. The trustee did acknowledge the member was seriously ill but that was not at the heart of the dispute.

The Tribunal noted the member had reported income which had resulted in legitimate adjustments to his benefit in 2008. It was, therefore, somewhat odd that despite the member having demonstrated a willingness to do the right thing in past years, that from 2015 the trustee’s requests for additional information had become “progressively more detailed” and appeared to be “based on a refusal by the trustee to accept the information and explanations” the member made. Other than the $100,000 superannuation contribution (discussed below) there was a “lack of evidence of any substantial, undisclosed work activity or income earned”. Further, the anonymous caller failed to provide evidence of his claims. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided that the member had complied, within reason, and that the continued suspension of his pension and ongoing requests for further information by the trustee “went beyond what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances”.

With respect to the $100,000 superannuation contribution, the Tribunal noted that company directors are considered employees even if they do not earn a fee or do any work. It was possible for a non-superannuation guarantee contribution to be made to a “superannuation fund of a director, that is not calculated by reference to any salary or wages and is therefore not a result of personal exertion”. The Tribunal also noted that prior to 2010, this type of contribution was not considered income with the result it was not reportable on a director’s personal income tax return. This meant the member was under no obligation to report the contribution to the trustee and was not in breach of the trust deed. The Tribunal also noted the member was not well enough in 2007/08 to have generated $100,000 of income.

For these reasons, the Tribunal held the trustee’s decision to cease the pension and to not compensate the member for his costs incurred in relation to the erroneous ETA (a mistake of the trustee) were unfair and unreasonable. The trustee was ordered to not only reinstate the pension (backdated to 1 April 2015) but to also pay the compensation amount and apply interest on these amounts at the fund’s cash rate.

D17-1897

Case 2:

This case involved the trustee exercising its discretion as to whom a death benefit should be paid, but here the Tribunal concluded the trustee’s discretion was exercised in an ‘unfair and unreasonable’ manner. The case is essentially about a failure to follow the correct analytical process to determine whether a person was in an interdependency relationship with the deceased.

The member died when he was only 51 and he left a wife with whom he resided, and a son and daughter, who were both adults. He was also having an extramarital affair and this person joined the case as the Third Joined Party.

The member did not leave a binding death benefit nomination, but in a non-binding nomination, he had indicated for the benefit to be paid to his wife (the Complainant in the case). His will had left the estate to his son but it was an insolvent estate. His daughter had been specifically left out of the will with an explanation having been given. His extramarital affair had been in existence for some time, but he did not live with her full time and there was little evidence of financial dependency. The deceased member’s adult children and the Third Joined Party all lived in properties owned by the deceased and they all paid below market rent. There was also evidence that he financially supported his daughter and that their relationship had improved since the time he wrote the will.

Initially, the trustee decided to pay the entire death benefit to the wife, but after complaints raised by the daughter and the Third Joined Party, it decided to divide the benefit equally between these three people. It was this decision that was the subject of the Tribunal’s focus.

As is generally the case with the governing rules of most funds, the deed required the death benefit to be paid to ‘dependants’ or the ‘legal personal representative’ of the deceased. Here the wife and the two children all clearly satisfied the definition of dependant. For the Third Joined Party to be a dependant her circumstances had to satisfy the legal requirements of an ‘interdependency relationship’ with the deceased.

At law, a person is in an ‘interdependency relationship’ with another if all of the following are satisfied; namely:-

  1. they have a close personal relationship; and
  2. they live together; and
  3. one or each of them provides the other with financial support; and
  4. one or each of them provides the other with domestic support and personal care.

On the facts, the Third Joined Party was not living with the deceased with
the consequence she could not satisfy all of the legal requirements for being in an interdependency relationship. The trustee had therefore erred at law in concluding she satisfied those requirements. That has to be a failure in clear analytical thinking.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the trustee’s decision regarding the distribution of the death benefit and substitute its own. The Tribunal decided for the benefit to be divided equally between the wife and the daughter.

D17-1890

Picture of By Clayton Utz

By Clayton Utz

More Reading

Q&A with IFM Investors’ David Whiteley
In-Depth In-Depth

Q&A with IFM Investors’ David Whiteley

Super system can turbocharge productivity on road to net zero
In-Depth In-Depth

Super system can turbocharge productivity on road to net zero

Understanding the Division 296 super tax
In-Depth In-Depth

Understanding the Division 296 super tax

Derek Thompson

Best Selling Author, Podcast Host of 'Plain English'

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Few speakers can match Derek Thompson‘s ability to synthesize mega-trends in society, labor, economics, technology, and politics. Put another way: Derek trawls the data sets and does the forecasting and deep reporting necessary to help us better understand how we live, how we vote, how we spend, and how we work.

In his paradigm-shifting #1 New York Times bestseller, Abundance (co-written with Ezra Klein), this award-winning journalist reveals how our policies and culture have pushed us into a world of scarcity (not enough housing, workers, or progress)—and offers a radical new path towards a world where housing is affordable, energy is plentiful, and innovation flourishes across industries.

He shares a compelling vision of a future where we have more than enough for everybody, and a practical, actionable roadmap for how to get there. It starts with taking more risks, building more expansively, and recognizing that we all have the power to create a world of abundance. “Everything’s utopian until it’s reality,” he says.

Carmen Beverley-Smith

Executive Director - Superannuation, Life & Private Health Insurance, APRA

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Carmen joined APRA in March 2023 and holds the role of Executive Director, Life and Private Health Insurance and Superannuation.  

She has had an esteemed career in financial services, spanning over 25 years. She has held diverse leadership roles at Westpac and Commonwealth Bank of Australia, including across risk, transformation and change, product and portfolio development, and sales and service. 

Prior to joining APRA, she held the role of General Manager, Risk Transformation Delivery Integration at Westpac. This involved leading the group-wide implementation of a suite of solutions to uplift risk management capability and develop data, analytics and reporting. 

Carmen leads with a values-driven approach and a particular interest in developing and mentoring talent. 

She holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Accounting, is a certified Chartered Accountant and a Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. 

Amy C. Edmondson

Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management, Harvard Business School

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Amy C. Edmondson is the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School, a chair established to support the study of human interactions that lead to the creation of successful enterprises that contribute to the betterment of society.

Edmondson has been recognized by the biannual Thinkers50 global ranking of management thinkers since 2011, and most recently was ranked #1 in 2021 and 2023; she also received that organization’s Breakthrough Idea Award in 2019, and Talent Award in 2017.  She studies teaming, psychological safety, and organisational learning, and her articles have been published in numerous academic and management outlets, including Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Harvard Business Review and California Management Review. Her 2019 book, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth (Wiley), has been translated into 15 languages. Her prior books – Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate and compete in the knowledge economy (Jossey-Bass, 2012), Teaming to Innovate (Jossey-Bass, 2013) and Extreme Teaming (Emerald, 2017) – explore teamwork in dynamic organisational environments. In Building the future: Big teaming for audacious innovation (Berrett-Koehler, 2016), she examines the challenges and opportunities of teaming across industries to build smart cities. 

Edmondson’s latest book, Right Kind of Wrong (Atria), builds on her prior work on psychological safety and teaming to provide a framework for thinking about, discussing, and practicing the science of failing well. First published in the US and the UK in September, 2023, the book is due to be translated into 24 additional languages, and was selected for the Financial Times and Schroders Best Business Book of the Year award.

Before her academic career, she was Director of Research at Pecos River Learning Centers, where she worked on transformational change in large companies. In the early 1980s, she worked as Chief Engineer for architect/inventor Buckminster Fuller, and her book A Fuller Explanation: The Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller (Birkauser Boston, 1987) clarifies Fuller’s mathematical contributions for a non-technical audience. Edmondson received her PhD in organisational behavior, AM in psychology, and AB in engineering and design from Harvard University.

 

Daniel Mulino MP

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Born in Brindisi, Italy, Daniel was a young child when he moved with his family to Australia. He grew up in Canberra and completed his first degrees – arts and law – at the ANU. He then completed a Master of Economics (University of Sydney) and a PhD in economics from Yale.

He lectured at Monash University, was an economic adviser in the Gillard government and was a Victorian MP from 2014 to 2018. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer of Victoria, Daniel helped deliver major infrastructure projects and developed innovative financing structures for community projects.

In 2018 he was preselected for the new federal seat of Fraser and became its first MP at the 2019 election, re-elected in 2022 and 2025. From 2022 to 2025, Daniel was chair of the House of Representatives’ Standing Economics Committee in which he chaired inquiries; economic dynamism, competition and business formation and insurers’ responses to 2022 major floods claims.

In 2025, he became the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services.

In August 2022, Daniel published ‘Safety Net: The Future of Welfare in Australia’, which aims to explore the ways in which an insurance approach can improve the effectiveness of government service delivery.