The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (the ‘Commission’) has welcomed today’s important High Court judgment, finding that the State’s failure to provide a spouse’s pension to a ‘qualified cohabitant’ is incompatible with the Constitution.
The Commission appeared as amicus curiae in the High Court case of Jones v Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General.
This case concerned a challenge by Mr Jones of the decision of the Minister to refuse him the benefit of his late partner’s civil service pension under the Civil Service Spouses' and Children's Contributory Pension Scheme. The couple lived together for almost 25 years until the death of Mr Jones’ partner in 2022.
Mr Jones was denied a pension on the basis that, according to the State, the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 did not provide an entitlement to a spousal pension for cohabitees who were not married or in civil partnerships. The State’s position was that the public service pension is only payable to a “spouse” or “civil partner”.
In the High Court today, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter delivered judgment finding that the failure of the State to provide Mr Jones, as a qualified cohabitant of his late partner, with a spousal occupational pension is incompatible with article 40.1 of the Constitution.
The Court found that a statutory objective of the pension scheme in question is to provide a benefit to a surviving life partner to meet the financial support that would otherwise have been provided by the member to that life partner when alive. The Court held that for this purpose there is no difference in social function between a surviving spouse/civil partner and a surviving qualified cohabitant of the member.
The Court also found that it is not rational to differentiate or discriminate between these different classes (the surviving spouse/civil partner of a member, as opposed to a surviving qualified cohabitant of a member) when viewed against the statutory purpose of the pension scheme.
The Court stated that such discrimination is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not reasonably capable, when objectively viewed in the light of the social function involved, of supporting the selection or classification complained of.
Liam Herrick, Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said:
“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. The Commission welcomes the clarity this judgment provides on the equal treatment of families and partners in Irish law.”
Notes to the Editor:
In broad terms, a qualified cohabitant is a person who is not married or in a formal civil partnership but who is in an enduring, intimate and committed relationship with a partner (of either sex) and living with that partner. The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) allows for an application to be made to the Court to be declared a “qualified cohabitant”.
Amicus Curiae
The power to apply to the High Court, Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court for permission to appear as amicus curiae is an important legal power of the Commission, as set out in Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014. It allows the Commission to address the court in a non-partisan role on issues concerning human rights and equality that have wider consequences for society in general.