The law firm which represented Denise Brewster in her successful appeal to claim a survivor pension from her deceased fiance’s scheme has said that “reform is long overdue”.

Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitor Gareth Mitchell said that denying bereaved cohabitees access to a survivor pension causes “huge distress as well as significant financial hardship”. He noted that around one in six families in the UK are cohabiting and therefore “reform is long overdue”.

“The Supreme Court has decided that there was unlawful discrimination on grounds of marital status. This is the first marital status discrimination claim to reach the Supreme Court. It is likely to have a significant wider impact, both in relation to pensions and in other areas where long-term cohabitees are treated less favourably,” he explained.

"The rule which the Supreme Court has declared was unlawful is found in most of the UK’s public sector pension schemes of which there are around 12 million members. This includes the NHS, teachers and civil service schemes. It is also found in many defined benefit pension schemes in the private sector.

"Although the Supreme Court has only declared the Northern Ireland local government scheme to be unlawful, the reasoning behind the Court’s decision means that the identical provisions found in many other public sector schemes are likely to be unenforceable.

"In addition, while the Human Rights Act does not extend to private sector pension schemes, members of those schemes will rightly expect their employers not to participate in schemes which discriminate unfairly on grounds of marital status."

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said today’s judgment is good news for anyone who stood to lose out on their partner’s pension, simply because a form hadn’t been signed.

“It means the Northern Ireland local government pension scheme and others covering people working in education, the NHS and the civil service will now have to look again at their rules. The last thing a recently bereaved person needs is to have to fight for a pension that’s rightfully theirs. This thankfully will no longer be necessary.”

However, Pinsent Masons partner Nick Stones said it was “not surprising” that the pension scheme said there was no benefit as the rules clearly required the couple to have opted into the benefit.

“The court struggled to see why the opt-in it was necessary because there were other ways of evidencing the key criteria. To make matters worse for the NI Executive, they had never turned their mind to the point. Whilst it is questionable whether the outcome would have been any different, if the Executive had considered the point at the time of enacting the law, it would have been given more leeway by the judges.

“This judgment shows that whilst the lawmaker can enact rules and regulations that clearly provide for one thing, these are still subject to scrutiny by the courts and the applicability of more sacrosanct laws such as the Human Rights Act. When policy decisions impinge on fundamental rights, then the law maker needs to carefully consider and justify the changes at the time of the enactment. Retrospective justification will carry less weight.”

Share Story: