EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 527

ASIC v Telstra Super

A Federal Court case about enforceable internal dispute resolution rules, complaint response deadlines and delay notices for financial...

Federal Court of Australia30 Apr 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Complaint handling is a regulated process for many financial businesses, not a customer service courtesy.
  • A Federal Court case about enforceable internal dispute resolution rules, complaint response deadlines and delay notices for financial services licensees.

Use this to check

  • IDR deadlines should be tracked from the date the complaint is received.
  • Delay notices need real reasons, not generic wording that says the investigation is ongoing.
  • AFCA rights and contact details must be included where the IDR rules require them.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Telstra Super was trustee of the Telstra Superannuation Scheme and held an AFS licence.
    • ASIC alleged that, across 323 complaints received between 22 October 2021 and 13 January 2023, Telstra Super committed many breaches of its internal dispute resolution procedure.
    • Telstra Super admitted 38 failures, but contested much of ASIC's case.
    • The Court found important contraventions, including failures to provide IDR responses within the 45 day timeframe for some complaints, delay notices that did not give proper reasons, and some responses that omitted AFCA information.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether the ASIC IDR Instrument validly required financial services licensees to comply with their internal dispute resolution procedures, whether Telstra Super breached those procedures, and whether ASIC also proved resourcing and efficiently, honestly and fairly contraventions.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Federal Court found Telstra Super contravened its enforceable IDR obligations in important respects, including timeliness and content failures.
    • The Court did not find that ASIC proved the separate resourcing or efficiently, honestly and fairly allegations.
    • The parties were directed to agree orders and a statement of facts for the established contraventions.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Complaint handling is a regulated process for many financial businesses, not a customer service courtesy.
  • Response deadlines, delay notices and AFCA information need to be accurate, specific and tracked in the file.

Useful next steps

  • IDR deadlines should be tracked from the date the complaint is received.
  • Delay notices need real reasons, not generic wording that says the investigation is ongoing.
  • AFCA rights and contact details must be included where the IDR rules require them.
  • Partial regulator success still creates useful guidance for complaint systems and evidence trails.
  • Keep one complaint register with received date, owner, deadline, status and outcome.

Practical read

Telstra Super is a complaint-handling case, and the story is practical. Once ASIC's enforceable IDR standards apply, a business cannot treat complaint timelines as soft targets. The process has to show when the complaint was received, when it was acknowledged, when the final response was due, whether a delay exception genuinely applied, and what the customer was told.

The Court also gave the case nuance. ASIC did not win everything. The Court was not satisfied that Telstra Super failed to resource its IDR process so that it operated fairly, effectively and efficiently, and it did not find a separate failure to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly. But the Court did confirm that compliance with mandatory IDR standards is enforceable.

For regulated businesses, the useful lesson is simple: generic delay notices are risky. If a response is late, the file should show the actual reason, the customer's AFCA rights where required, and the steps being taken to get the complaint moving.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Keep one complaint register with received date, owner, deadline, status and outcome.
  • Review delay-notice templates so they require a specific reason for delay.
  • Check when AFCA details and escalation rights must be included.
  • Audit complaint files for evidence that exceptions were considered before a deadline was missed.
  • Use complaint data to spot product, process or staffing problems early.

Key takeaways

  • IDR deadlines should be tracked from the date the complaint is received.
  • Delay notices need real reasons, not generic wording that says the investigation is ongoing.
  • AFCA rights and contact details must be included where the IDR rules require them.
  • Partial regulator success still creates useful guidance for complaint systems and evidence trails.

Related topics

Finance, Payments & SecurityConsumer Law & Trading

How Sprintlaw can help

Regulatory ComplianceContract Review