Supreme Court to hear appeal from deceased woman’s partner who wants widower’s pension

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal against a decision that a deceased woman’s long-time partner is not entitled to the widower’s pension.

Granting a direct appeal against a judgment of the High Court, a three-judge Supreme Court panel said John O’Meara and his three children’s challenge against the Minister for Social Protection’s refusal to grant him the pension raises points of general public importance in the area of social welfare law.

Mr O’Meara’s claim for the Widowers Contributory Pension came after his partner of more than 20 years, Michelle Batey, died in January 2021 after contracting Covid-19.

In the action, Mr O’Meara and the couple’s three minor children claimed sections of the 2005 Social Welfare Consolidation Act were discriminatory as they excluded him from receiving the pension because he was not married to or in a civil partnership with his late partner.

Bruce Springsteen concert in Cork: Tell us your verdict

---

Esther’s review: A smart south Dublin restaurant with Mediterranean-style food

---

Is there an alternative to banning children from social media?

---

Newton Emerson: Northern Ireland is already a ‘sanctuary city’ in the UK – it could yet become one in Europe

---

Their action was against the Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, and the Attorney General, each of which opposed the claim.

Last October, Mr Justice Mark Heslin dismissed their claim.

Mr Justice Heslin said the challenge centred on the constitutionality of parts of the 2005 Act and the entitlement of the children, through their father Mr O’Meara, to the payment.

The judge held that they were not entitled to the payment and rejected their claims that the State’s refusal to make the payment amounted to a form of discrimination.

Legislation concerning who is entitled to be paid this particular pension is extremely wide, but it does not apply to people in the applicants’ situation, he said. It is for the Oireachtas, rather than the courts, to decide who should benefit from this pension, the judge said.

Not for child

The judge also held that the payment is not a benefit for any child paid through a parent and is not a payment directed at supporting families with children. It is directed at supporting a bereaved spouse and is a payment to which a person is entitled if they were married to the deceased, he said.

The State respondents said the establishment of the payment is one of the mechanisms by which the State supports the institution of marriage, and the fostering of the legal and social bands which derive from that institution.

The respondents opposed the O’Mearas’ application to the Supreme Court and argued that no issue of public importance was raised.

In a written determination, the Supreme Court panel, comprising Mr Justice Peter Charleton, Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe and Mr Justice Maurice Collins said the appeal raised difficult, complex and important issues of general public importance.

The court granted leave for certain issues, including if the non-payment of the pension in these circumstances is consistent with the Constitution and articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The issue concerning the nature and the purpose of the pension, including whether it is to be regarded in any way as a benefit to children, may be addressed within the appeal, the judges said.

In his claim, Mr O’Meara said he had planned to marry Ms Batey. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018 and was recovering well following treatment including chemotherapy.

However, her condition made her vulnerable to Covid-19, which she contracted in December 2020.

Following her death, Mr O’Meara, an agricultural plant contractor of Grawn, Toomervara, Nenagh Co Tipperary applied for the widower’s pension, in respect of him and his three children, on the basis that the children reside with him.

In April 2021 deciding officers on behalf of the Minister refused the application, on the grounds that there was no civil marriage between Mr O’Meara and Ms Batey.

He sought to revise that decision claiming that he and Ms Batey had lived together full-time in, effectively, a marital relationship for 20 years.

He also submitted that the couple had been cohabiting together for many years and qualified for the pension under the 2010 Civil Partnership laws. That application was also unsuccessful.