MetLife Insurance Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 27 October 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] FCAFC 173
• Date: 27 October 2022
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)

Federal Court of Australia

MetLife Insurance Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited [2022] FCAFC 173

Appeal from:	MetLife Insurance Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2002] FCA 23
File number(s):	NSD 126 of 2022
Judgment of:	MIDDLETON, JACKSON AND HALLEY JJ
Date of judgment:	27 October 2022
Catchwords:	SUPERANNUATION – appeal from decision of primary judge, where primary judge decided that respondent (AFCA) has authority to determine complaint relating to superannuation that falls outside ambit of sub-ss 1053(1)(a)-(j) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – principles of statutory construction – textual analysis of s 1053(1) – statutory context – extrinsic materials considered – where AFCA did not have authority to determine complaint relating to superannuation falling outside sub-ss 1053(1)(a)-(j) – notice of contention that complaint by second respondent not a complaint relating to superannuation – where contractual provisions in AFCA Rules cannot consensually be expanded beyond statutorily defined limits – where no ad hoc agreement between parties that determination of the Superannuation Complaint should proceed independently of AFCA Scheme – notice of contention dismissed – appeal allowed
Legislation:	Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 13 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 761A, 912A, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1054A, 1054B, 1054C, 1055, 1057 Revised Explanatory Memorandum, Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 (Cth) Second Reading Speech, Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 (Cth) Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Adamson and Others v New South Wales Rugby League Limited and Others (1991) 31 FCR 242 Australian Alliance Assurance Co. Ltd v Attorney-General of Queensland and John Goodwyn [1916] St R Qd 135 Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503; [2012] HCA 55 Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405; [1905] HCA 11 Kostas and Another v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd and Another (2010) 241 CLR 390; [2010] HCA 32 MetLife Insurance Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority (2022) 157 ACSR 542; [2022] FCA 23 MetLife Insurance Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority (No 3) [2022] FCA 849 Paula Susan Chappell as Executor of the Estate of Robert Hastings Hitchcock v Goldspan Investments Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 205 Project Blue Sky Inc and Others v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 R v Khazaal (2012) 246 CLR 601; [2012] HCA 26 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection and Another; SZTGM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Another (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34 The Council of the City of Brisbane v His Majesty’s Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (1908) 5 CLR 695; [1908] HCA 8 Thiess v Collector of Customs and Others (2014) 250 CLR 664; [2014] HCA 12
	Treasury, Final Report: Review of the financial system external dispute resolution and complaints framework, report prepared by Ramsay, I et al (Treasury, Canberra, 2017)
Division:	Appeal Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs:	192
Date of hearing:	23 August 2022
Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr J Gleeson SC with Ms K Lindeman
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr MW Wise KC with Mr AF Solomon-Bridge
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Arslan Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent submitted to any order of the Court

ORDERS

		NSD 126 of 2022
BETWEEN:	METLIFE INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 004 274 882 Appellant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ACN 620 494 340 First Respondent ; BRIAN RONALD EDGECOMBE Second Respondent

order made by:	MIDDLETON, JACKSON AND HALLEY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	27 OCTOBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Within fourteen (14) days the parties file an agreed form of orders, or in default of agreement, any submissions as to the form of the appropriate orders reflecting the reasons of the Court.

2. Subject to any further directions, the final orders of the Court will be made on the papers.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

Introduction

1. This appeal is concerned with the proper construction of s 1053(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). The question to be determined is whether the Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited (AFCA) has authority to determine a “complaint relating to superannuation” that falls outside the ambit of sub-ss 1053(1)(a)-(j). The primary judge answered that question in the affirmative: MetLife Insurance Limited v Australian Financial Complaints Authority (2022) 157 ACSR 542; [2022] FCA 23 (J).

2. The appellant (MetLife) contends that finding was in error.

3. MetLife submits that the text of s 1053, its statutory context, the legislative history and other extrinsic material all support the conclusion that AFCA has no authority to determine a “complaint relating to superannuation” that does not fall within any of the categories of complaint set out in sub-ss 1053(1)(a)-(j). Accordingly, it submits that AFCA had no authority to determine a complaint made by the second respondent (Mr Edgecombe) against MetLife in 2018 (2018 Complaint), being a “complaint relating to superannuation” that did not fall within any of sub-ss 1053(1)(a)-(j).

4. AFCA submits that the primary judge was correct to determine that s 1053(1) did not preclude it from determining the 2018 Complaint. Further, AFCA contends in its amended notice of contention that the 2018 Complaint was not a “complaint relating to superannuation”. AFCA submits that the parties had entered into a contract pursuant...