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

Can I Move Away With My Child? Relocation Law in Australia

Relocation cases sit among the most difficult parenting disputes in Australian family law. They usually arise when one parent wants to move with a child, or has already moved, in a way that reduces the other parent’s time or involvement. That move might be to another suburb, another regional town, another state, or overseas. These… Read More »Can I Move Away With My Child? Relocation Law in Australia

Who is a Parent By Stephen Page

The question sounds simple. Who is a parent? In law, it is anything but simple. Biology matters. Birth matters. Intention matters. Paperwork matters. State law matters. Federal law matters. Sometimes they line up neatly. Sometimes they collide in ways that leave families, lawyers and government departments wrestling with very uncomfortable uncertainty. That is especially true… Read More »Who is a Parent By Stephen Page

Posthumous Conception in Victoria: Retrieval, Consent, and the Law

Posthumous conception cases in Victoria sit at the intersection of grief, medicine, and strict statutory rules. They are deeply personal matters, but they are also highly technical. Timing matters. Consent matters. Process matters. And one of the hardest truths for families is that retrieving eggs, sperm, or embryos is often easier than being legally allowed… Read More »Posthumous Conception in Victoria: Retrieval, Consent, and the Law

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