Just when you thought it was over- now the fight was over the son’s super

Just when you thought it was over- now the fight was over the son’s super

Years after the husband and wife had separated and then divorced, their son, aged 17, died. He left behind about $80,000 worth of superannuation. He had no will and nominated his mother as beneficiary. Who was to receive it?

The mother obtained a determination from the trustee of the super fund that because she and the son were in an interdependent relationship (and because in the trustee’s opinion the son and father were not), she should receive 100%.

Not surprisingly, the father didn’t like that one bit and took the matter to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.

The Tribunal ruled that mum and dad were to get 50% each because, in considering interdependent relationships:

  • A close personal relationship-The mother had a close personal relationship with her sor.
  • They live together – While the sonspent some time with his father, he lived with his mother.
  • One or each of them provides the other with financial support-The mother provided financial support to the son.
  • One of each of them provides the otherwith domestic support and personal care-The mother provided domestic support and personal care.
  • However, when reviewing the factors set outin the regulations that are to be taken into account when determining whether or not an interdependency relationship existed, the Tribunal found that
  • many of the factors are either irrelevant(due to the parent child relationship) or are inapplicable in the circumstances (for example the mother did not own property jointly with the son or operate a joint bank account with him).
  • There was no indication that the son would permanently live with the mother, and whilst the parental relationship would be lifelong, there was no intention that any interdependency relationship (assuming for these purposes that such a relationship existed) would be permanent.
  • Both the mother and the father had a close personal relationship with the son and provided him with financial and other support. However, neither was in an interdependency relationship with him.
  • Therefore, a fair and reasonable distribution of the benefit would be for the mother and the father to receive equal shares.
Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

Egg donation in Australia: who can donate?

Egg donation can help another person or couple become parents. But donating eggs involves more than medical treatment. It also involves decisions about consent, identity, family connections and the interests of a child who may be born. The starting point is straightforward: an egg donor must be donating their own eggs, have medical clearance and… Read More »Egg donation in Australia: who can donate?

De facto relationship: what counts under family law?

Sharing a home does not automatically make two people a de facto couple. Equally, living apart does not necessarily mean that a de facto relationship cannot exist. Under Australian family law, the question involves more than an address. The central issue is whether the couple’s relationship amounts to living together on a genuine domestic basis.… Read More »De facto relationship: what counts under family law?

Paid egg donation in Australia: is it legal?

Can someone be paid to donate eggs in Australia? The short answer is no. Human eggs cannot lawfully be treated as something to buy or sell. Australia permits altruistic egg donation, not commercial egg donation. But that is not the end of the story. A donor may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses associated with the… Read More »Paid egg donation in Australia: is it legal?

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board