FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd [2000] FCA 502
|
JUDGE: |
HIGGINS J |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
11 APRIL 2000 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
CANBERRA |
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
BETWEEN: |
KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS AND ANOTHER APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT
|
|
JUSTIN COLLINS AND NICHOLAS COLLINS SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for a stay of proceedings is declined.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
BETWEEN: |
KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS AND ANOTHER APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT
|
|
AND: |
JUSTIN COLLINS AND NICHOLAS COLLINS SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
|
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 There is nothing to prevent the applicants for a stay of proceeding appealing against the decision of Finn J. There is also nothing to prevent the applicants taking such proceedings as may be appropriate under the Family Provision Act whether it be of New South Wales or Victoria. It seems unlikely to be that of the Australian Capital Territory given the addresses of the parties and the place where the trustees resided for the purpose of making a determination. Whether or not such an application would be competent after this lapse of time, I do not know.
2 It may well be that an extension of time could or might be granted on the grounds as shown. However, the present proceedings are not appropriate for that purpose. The present proceedings are an application for a stay of Finn J’s decision to dismiss an appeal from the decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal which in turn had, following Merkel J’s decision, rejected a complaint made by the applicants against a determination that the superannuation benefits be divided into two and paid to two of the four children of the deceased. Now, whatever be the merits of the appeal, I say nothing about that, it does seem to me that a stay would simply serve no useful purpose and there is nothing to stay.
3
Whether or not there may be some possible stay
of proceedings against the two remaining children in the event that some order
is sought to include payments of superannuation in the estate for the purpose
of the Family Provision Act of whatever
State or Territory may be relevant, requiring them perhaps to put aside some of
the funds which may be distributed to them, I do not know but, then again, that
is a hypothetical question. So, in
short, on the information I currently have the application for stay is
declined.
4 I make the usual order as to costs. That is, that the applicant pay the respondents costs of and incidental to this application
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Higgins |
Associate:
Dated: 11 April 2000
|
Counsel for the Applicants: |
Mr C Kilduff |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Applicant: |
G J Piscioneri & Co. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the First Respondent: |
Mr G Stretton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the First Respondent: |
Mallesons Stephen Jaques |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Second Respondent: |
Mr D Harper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: |
Abbott Tout Harper & Blain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
11 APRIL 2000 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
11 APRIL 2000 |
