The High Court has dismissed an appeal by trustees of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS) pension fund, leaving in place a Pensions Ombudsman determination in favour of Dr Emer Lawlor over how her pension was calculated after a 15% pay cut.
Dr Lawlor worked for the IBTS from December 1988 until her retirement on 7 October 2011. Her pension was calculated using her reduced salary. She argued that section 3(2) of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009 required the salary reduction to be disregarded when calculating pension entitlements for people who retired by the relevant deadline, later set at 29 February 2012.
The trustees rejected her complaint through the scheme’s internal dispute process, saying she did not qualify because the scheme was not a “public service pension scheme” under the legislation. The Pensions Ombudsman upheld her complaint on 22 June 2012 and directed the trustees to restore her pension to a level based on her salary before the cut, and to pay the appropriate pension and lump-sum arrears from her retirement date.
The trustees appealed under section 140 of the Pensions Act 1990. They argued, among other things, that the scheme was self-financed and did not meet the statutory definition. They also challenged aspects of the Ombudsman’s investigation and handling of evidence.
President of the High Court Nicholas Kearns said the appeal was limited: the court could annul or confirm the determination, but was not conducting a full rehearing. Applying the standard for appeals from specialist ombudsmen, he said the trustees had to show a serious and significant error in the process or decision. He found no such error.
The judgment noted that IBTS employees had been subjected to the pay cut under a Department of Health circular expressly referring to the 2009 Act, and that a pension levy under the companion 2009 Act had also been applied. The court accepted that the Ombudsman could take this context into account and interpret the legislation to avoid depriving Dr Lawlor of the pension protection associated with the cut. It also concluded that the Ombudsman’s reasoning on the scheme’s status was sufficiently grounded in the statutory wording and that a fair result had been reached for this complainant.
The court rejected the trustees’ subsidiary complaints about alleged factual error, nondisclosure, access to counsel’s opinion and prejudgment. It did not set out a general resolution of the wider disagreements between IBTS and state departments about how the legislation applied. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Ombudsman’s directions in force.