CASE UPDATE | High Court provides relief for SMSF advisors and members – Hill v Zuda

Many advisors and members of self managed superannuation funds (SMSF) have been eagerly awaiting the decision of the High Court in Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 21. A background of the issue in this case is set out in our previous article.

Today, the High Court of Australia published its unanimous decision that regulation 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 does not apply to SMSFs.

Broadly, provided the rules of the SMSF allow it, a member of an SMSF is not required to adhere to the prerequisites of binding death benefit nominations (BDBNs) set out in reg 6.17A, including the requirement that the BDBN must lapse three years from the date it was signed by the member.

It is important for all members, trustees and advisors of SMSFs to remember that the trustee and members remain governed by the rules of the fund which will need to allow for non-lapsing BDBNs (or indeed any other conditions) if the member is seeking to make such a BDBN.

How we can help

For expert advice or guidance regarding Estate Planning and self managed superannuation funds, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Stay connected

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.