An unsuccessful challenge to the suspension of a contributory State pension during imprisonment has resulted in an order that the plaintiff receive two-thirds of his costs.
In a ruling delivered on 14 June 2016, the High Court considered whether special circumstances justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the outcome of a case. The plaintiff had lost his constitutional and European Convention challenge to section 249(1) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, which disqualifies a person from the benefit while imprisoned or detained in legal custody.
The plaintiff argued that the case was a test case with wider public importance. His counsel said he had contributed to social insurance throughout his working life and received the State pension contributory before imprisonment. The challenge also raised the legal character of entitlements based on social insurance contributions and the possible effect of a successful outcome on other social welfare disqualifications.
The defendants opposed a departure from the normal costs rule. They argued that the case did not meet the criteria for either a test case or a public interest challenge.
Mr Justice Binchy said the Court had been told that about 40 people a year were affected by the provision. A successful challenge could have led to further claims, including claims for past payments, and the defendants had raised concerns about consequences for other benefits. The judge considered the challenge substantive, not frivolous or vexatious, and found the issues to be of significant general public importance.
The judge also took account of the plaintiff’s lifetime of contributions, his receipt of the pension before imprisonment and the long history of the disqualification provision. He said the purpose of the provision had not become clear until the issues were argued and decided in the proceedings.
The Court ordered the defendants to pay two-thirds of the plaintiff’s costs. Mr Justice Binchy said the reduction reflected both the plaintiff’s unsuccessful case and the time spent on arguments he considered wider than necessary, particularly some more remote arguments based on Convention rights. The ruling concerned costs only; it did not overturn the earlier rejection of the substantive challenge.