In the matter of an application by Denise Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)

In the matter of an application by Denise Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)

The nomination requirement for cohabiting partners in the 2009 Regulations is not rationally connected to the objective of eliminating unjustified difference of treatment between cohabiting and married/civil partners. It adds nothing to the evidential requirements, is not objectively justified, and is disproportionate. The requirement must be disapplied as it constitutes unlawful discrimination under article 14 ECHR read with A1P1.

Parties
Applicant: Denise Brewster; 1st Respondent: Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC); 2nd Respondent: Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (DENI)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Survivor Benefits, European Convention on Human Rights, Proportionality, Nomination Requirement
Public Law Human Rights Pensions Discrimination Survivor Benefits European Convention on Human Rights Proportionality Nomination Requirement

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denise Brewster

Applicant

Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC)

1st Respondent

Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (DENI)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the nomination requirement for cohabiting partners in the Local Government Pension Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2009 constitutes unlawful discrimination contrary to article 14 ECHR read with article 1 of the First Protocol
  2. 2 Whether the requirement is justified and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The nomination requirement for cohabiting partners in the 2009 Regulations is not rationally connected to the objective of eliminating unjustified difference of treatment between cohabiting and married/civil partners. It adds nothing to the evidential requirements, is not objectively justified, and is disproportionate. The requirement must be disapplied as it constitutes unlawful discrimination under article 14 ECHR read with A1P1.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the nomination requirement in the 2009 Regulations be disapplied for the appellant
  • Appellant entitled to receive a survivor’s pension under the scheme