State’s refusal of spouse’s pension for partner of 25 years is unconstitutional
The State’s refusal to provide a man who lived with his late partner for 25 years with a spouse’s pension is unconstitutional, the High Court has ruled.
Freddie Jones brought a High Court action against the Minister for Public Expenditure, arguing that he was discriminated against by the State’s refusal to allow him benefit from his late partner’s contributions to a civil service pension scheme.
The Minister had denied Mr Jones a spouse’s pension under the Civil Service Spouses’ and Children’s Contributory Pension Scheme, on the basis that the scheme does not provide an entitlement for a person to benefit from the scheme if they are not married or in a civil partnership with their partner, the contributor to the scheme.
Mr Jones had lived for almost 25 years with his partner, James Kingston, a lawyer and senior civil servant, in an “intimate, committed relationship” prior to the latter’s death in 2022.
Mr Jones argued that the pensions scheme, in denying him the benefits of Mr Kingston’s contributions to the scheme, was inconsistent with Article 40.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which provides that all citizens are held as equal before the law.
He submitted that the pension scheme treated him less fairly than another individual in a comparable situation who was married to or in a civil partnership with their late partner.
In a judgment published on Monday, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter said a key question in the case related to the “relevance and legitimacy” of the alleged discrimination in reference to the objective of the pension scheme.
The judge said that the objective of the scheme is to provide a benefit to the surviving life partner of the scheme contributor, to allow them to meet the financial support which would otherwise have been provided by the contributor to their partner when alive.
The judge said that for this purpose, there is “no difference” in the social function between a surviving spouse or civil partner, and a surviving cohabitant.
The judge said it was “not rational to differentiate or discriminate” between a surviving spouse or civil partner, and a surviving cohabitant when viewed against the objective of the pension scheme.
Ireland
Former CEO used company money to buy mobile home and install Geodomes for wife's yoga, firm alleges
The judge concluded that it seemed to him Mr Jones is entitled to a court declaration that the State’s refusal to provide him with a spouse’s pension is incompatible with the Constitution.
In a press statement, Liam Herrick, the chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), welcomed Mr Justice Ferriter’s findings. IHREC was a notice party to the action.
“This judgment is an important affirmation of the constitutional principle of equality before the law.
“The Court found here that there is no difference in social function between a surviving spouse/civil partner and a surviving qualified cohabitant for the purposes of accessing the Civil Service Spouses’ and Children’s Contributory Pension Scheme,” Mr Herrick said.
