Edington v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal
[2008] FCAFC 78
At a glance
Source factsCourt
Federal Court of Australia (Full Court)
Decision date
2008-05-15
Before
Lindgren JJ
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (4 paragraphs)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 The parties in this appeal have proposed to the Court consent orders that would have the effect of allowing the appeal, setting aside the orders made by the primary judge and the decision of the first respondent, that is the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (the Tribunal), and remitting the matter to the Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (the Board) to be determined according to law. 2 Conformably with the Court's decision in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy [2008] FCAFC 7, the parties have sought to identify to the Court a basis of error on the part of the decision‑maker, that is to say, the Tribunal, which would have constituted an error of law and on the basis of which the primary judge should have come to a different decision. 3 The error, shortly stated, is that there was no logical basis, having regard to the evidence, for the Tribunal's conclusion that a relationship had been demonstrated between the appellant's schizophrenia as a pre-existing medical condition and the post-traumatic stress disorder, which was the basis of the claim under the relevant policy. 4 On the basis of the submissions made by Mr Dorney and his characterisation of that error in which Mr Steele concurs, we are satisfied that it is proper to make the orders sought. The consequence will be that the matter will go back to the Board, at which time the report of Dr De Leacy that was not before the Board when it made its decision, will be before the Board and it can make a decision fully informed about the evidence relevant to the appellant's condition. 5 We will make the orders set out in the terms of the minute, with the addition, as order 1, that the appeal be allowed. The other orders are renumbered accordingly. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices French, Moore and Lindgren .