Case note: Nguyen v Australian Financial Complaints Authority (2024) FCAFC 77
The Federal Court’s recent Full Court decision in Nguyen v Australian Financial Complaints Authority (2024) FCAFC 77 (Nguyen v AFCA) should be a timely reminder to review and update your estate planning documents in the event of a de facto relationship coming to an end.
Nguyen v AFCA was an appeal of the Federal Court’s decision in Corbisieri v NM Superannuation Proprietary Limited (2023) FCA 1319 where the Court considered who should receive the superannuation entitlements of the deceased member, Mr Corbisieri, following his death.
Details of the case
Mr Corbisieri had taken out an insurance policy with NM Superannuation Pty Ltd and nominated his de facto partner, James Nguyen, via a non-lapsing binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) to receive 100% of his entitlement valued at $1.2 million in the event of his death.
On the morning of his death (by suicide), Mr Corbisieri sent a text message to his sister stating that he wished to leave all his property and assets to his family and that Mr Nguyen was not to receive anything because “he has put me in a position or stage of my life where I had enough”.
The executor of Mr Corbisieri’s estate was his mother. She alleged that at the time of his death the relationship between Mr Corbisieri and Mr Nguyen had come to an end. Mr Nguyen however asserted the relationship was an ongoing one.
The superannuation trustee in the first instance, having considered the text message from Mr Corbisieri to his sister, decided that Mr Nguyen was not Mr Corbisieri’s spouse at the time of his death and refused to pay the benefit in accordance with the BDBN.
Mr Nguyen then filed a complaint to AFCA, which overturned the superannuation trustee’s decision and awarded 100% of the death benefit to him.
Mr Corbisieri’s mother appealed AFCA’s decision arguing the text message sent by Mr Corbisieri to his sister indicated an intent to end the relationship, which would disqualify Mr Nguyen from accessing the benefit.
The Court found the text message was an ‘unequivocal intention’ of Mr Corbisieri’s intention to end the relationship. Mr Nguyen appealed this judgement seeking to reinstate AFCA’s decision.
Federal Court (Full Court) appeal decision
The central question for the Court on further appeal was whether or not Mr Corbisieri’s text message was sufficient in terminating his de facto relationship with Mr Nguyen, particularly in circumstances where there was no evidence to suggest that he may have taken any other steps to tell or inform Mr Nguyen through his actions that he considered the relationship to be over.
The Full Court found that a relationship between two people may not necessarily end merely because one party forms an intention to terminate it. The party who forms the intention must act upon that intention to terminate it. This could involve communicating the intention to the other party, or some other conduct consistent with termination, such as refusal to cohabit, refusal to communicate, or desertion.
The Full Court found that the only conduct of Mr Corbisieri to terminate the relationship was the text message to his sister stating his intention to take his own life. That alone was not sufficient to terminate his de facto relationship with Mr Nguyen.
As the text message was found to be insufficient in terminating the relationship, Mr Nguyen was considered to be Mr Corbisieri’s de facto spouse at the date of his death. The BDBN in favour of Mr Nguyen was valid and the payment of the superannuation entitlement was reinstated to him.
Conclusion
While there are practical considerations here in what is likely to constitute an intention to terminate a relationship, this case serves as an important reminder to prioritise updates where necessary to BDBNs, Wills, as well as powers of attorney, in the event of any de facto and marital relationship coming to an end.
Contact us
If you need estate planning advice or wish to update your estate planning documents, such as your beneficiary designations, Wills or powers of attorney, please contact a member of our Wills, Trusts & Estates team.
| Disclaimer: This publication contains comments of a general nature only and is provided as an information service. It is not intended to be relied upon, nor is it a substitute for specific professional advice. No responsibility can be accepted by Rigby Cooke Lawyers or the authors for loss occasioned to any person doing anything as a result of any material in this publication.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. © 2024 Rigby Cooke Lawyers |