Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and the Public/Private Distinction in Australian Administrative Law

Australian Journal of Administrative Law, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 147, 2006

17 Pages Posted: 13 Aug 2009 Last revised: 29 Jul 2010

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: May 1, 2006

Abstract

This article considers the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) and the capacity of its decisions to be reviewed. While the constitutional position of the SCT is settled after the decision of the High Court in Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83, its categorisation as a private body remains open to question. This being the case, the susceptibility of decisions of the SCT to review is compared with the equitable standards upon which trustee decisions are reviewable. Challenges to decisions of the SCT may not be possible under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) but the quasi-private character of the SCT – a private body with a public function – presents scope for courts to hold that the SCT owes an equitable duty to those within its jurisdiction.

Keywords: Administrative law, judicial review, superannuation

JEL Classification: K10, K30, K39

Suggested Citation

Weeks, Greg, Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and the Public/Private Distinction in Australian Administrative Law (May 1, 2006). Australian Journal of Administrative Law, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 147, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1448185

Greg Weeks (Contact Author)

ANU Law School ( email )

ANU College of Law
5 Fellows Road
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2600
Australia
6125 5420 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://law.anu.edu.au/people/greg-weeks

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
103
Abstract Views
995
Rank
318,453
PlumX Metrics