Harvey, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Haringey & Anor

Harvey, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Haringey & Anor

The claimant is not in a relevantly similar position to spouses or post-2008 cohabitees because survivor’s pension benefits were costed and paid for in those schemes, whereas the 1997 Scheme did not provide for such benefits for unmarried cohabitees. The difference in treatment is justified by legitimate aims including scheme affordability, intergenerational fairness, and avoidance of retrospective windfalls. The scheme does not indirectly discriminate on grounds of age, as differences arise from scheme rules and not age per se.

Parties
Claimant: Catherine Harvey; First Defendant: London Borough of Haringey; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 14 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Discrimination, Retrospective Application, Survivor's Pension, Local Government Pension Scheme, Marital Status Discrimination, Age Discrimination
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Pensions Law Administrative Law Article 14 ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Discrimination Retrospective Application +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Harvey

Claimant

London Borough of Haringey

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to pay survivor’s pension to unmarried cohabiting partner is discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 Protocol 1
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is in an analogous position to spouses or post-2008 cohabitees for purposes of Article 14
  3. 3 Whether the difference in treatment is objectively justified

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is not in a relevantly similar position to spouses or post-2008 cohabitees because survivor’s pension benefits were costed and paid for in those schemes, whereas the 1997 Scheme did not provide for such benefits for unmarried cohabitees. The difference in treatment is justified by legitimate aims including scheme affordability, intergenerational fairness, and avoidance of retrospective windfalls. The scheme does not indirectly discriminate on grounds of age, as differences arise from scheme rules and not age per se.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed