Mitchell, , Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 3 (20 January 2025)

Mitchell, , Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 3 (20 January 2025)

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused. The challenge is, in substance, to the 2011 Regulations, and must be brought within three months of the applicant being affected. The applicant is irredeemably out of time, having delayed since 2016 and pursued the wrong procedural route. Even if arguable grounds exist, there is no good reason to extend time. The difference in treatment in the pension scheme falls within a wide margin of judgment afforded to the government in socio-economic policy and is not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Citation
[2025] NIKB 3
Parties
Applicant: Norma Mitchell; Proposed Respondents: Defence Council and Secretary of State for Defence
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
20 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Article 14 ECHR, Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Discrimination, Survivor's Pension, Judicial Review, Human Rights Act 1998, Public Sector Pensions
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Pensions Law Article 14 ECHR Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR Article 8 ECHR Discrimination Survivor's Pension +3 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norma Mitchell

Applicant

Defence Council and Secretary of State for Defence

Proposed Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of unmarried, cohabiting partners from survivor's pension under the Reserve Forces Non-Regular Permanent Staff Pension Scheme constitutes unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR, taken with Article 1 of the First Protocol and/or Article 8 ECHR, and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  2. 2 Whether the challenge is properly to the 2011 Regulations or to an ongoing policy/failure to act.
  3. 3 Whether the application is out of time and, if so, whether time should be extended.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused. The challenge is, in substance, to the 2011 Regulations, and must be brought within three months of the applicant being affected. The applicant is irredeemably out of time, having delayed since 2016 and pursued the wrong procedural route. Even if arguable grounds exist, there is no good reason to extend time. The difference in treatment in the pension scheme falls within a wide margin of judgment afforded to the government in socio-economic policy and is not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
  • No extension of time is granted.