The UK Court of Appeal has found that a woman who was in a relationship with an army officer for 15 years can access his army pension scheme. She had been prevented from receiving the pension because she remained formally married to her ex-husband.
Air Commodore, Christopher Green, was with the Royal Air Force (RAF) when he died unexpectedly in May 2011. He had been in a relationship with Jan Langford for 15 years, however Ms Langford had not formally divorced from her ex-husband at the time of death. The RAF pension scheme provided that the unmarried partners of officers were entitled to the pension, but a surviving partner was disqualified if married to another person. Relying on this exclusionary rule, Ms Langford was refused access to the army pension scheme.
Ms Langford’s complaint failed before the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal. Prompted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brewster, she appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Following Brewster, the Court looked at the issue of objective justification by applying the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test. This involved examining the reasons for the difference in treatment put forward by the Secretary of State for Defence, and assume that unless shown to be without reasonable foundation, then justification is established.
The Secretary of State argued that the rule intended to achieve parity between married and unmarried partners; prevent a partner claiming twice should their spouse also be a member of a public service scheme; and avoid an increase in costs and administrative inconvenience.
The Court stated that none of these aims gave rise to a reasonable foundation for the rule. It was accepted that it was a legitimate aim of the RAF pension scheme to achieve parity of treatment between married and unmarried partners of scheme members, but it claimed that "such parity is in reality achieved not by imposing restrictions based on a partner's marital status, but by requiring the demonstration of a substantial, exclusive and financially dependent relationship in practice.”
The Court therefore held that the application of the exclusionary rule unjustifiably discriminated against Ms Langford in breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Click here for the decision in Langford v The Secretary of State for Defence.
Click here for a previous Bulletin article on the Brewster case.