The High Court has refused a retired Cork VEC law lecturer’s application to quash a decision limiting his additional pension service to one year, finding that he had a more suitable appeal route through the Pensions Ombudsman.
In a judgment delivered on 10 July 2013, Mr Justice Hedigan said the lecturer’s judicial review application should fail. He also said the sole ground pleaded—that the Minister for Education and Skills had acted irrationally—did not succeed on the material before the court.
The lecturer, Denis Kiely, worked as a full-time law lecturer from February 1977 until his retirement in February 2012. He applied in January 2012 for added professional years under public service pension rules. The Minister allowed one extra year, subject to contributions. An internal appeal upheld that decision in August 2012.
Kiely argued that the 1976 recruitment advertisement required a law degree and at least three years of appropriate post-qualification experience. He said “professional” experience meant qualification as a barrister or solicitor, and that the time needed to obtain that qualification should count. The Minister’s position was that the minimum requirement was a law degree, with a professional qualification equivalent to a degree as an alternative rather than an additional requirement.
The judge said the advertisement did not expressly require candidates to be barristers or solicitors. The pension calculations, he said, were based on the post’s minimum entry requirements, not the qualifications the successful candidate chose to obtain. He concluded that a law degree and three years’ post-qualification experience were the relevant minimums. The two years Kiely spent obtaining a professional legal qualification exceeded those minimum requirements and could not be included. The court said the Minister’s decision was not irrational.
However, the court’s decision also turned on the available alternative remedy. The Minister had pointed to an appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman under section 131 of the Pensions Act 1990, after the internal appeal process had been exhausted. The Ombudsman could consider the claim afresh and make findings about the history and requirements of similar posts; a further full hearing in the High Court could follow if either party appealed the Ombudsman’s determination.
Justice Hedigan considered that route broader and more useful than judicial review, which was limited to the specific pleaded ground. He refused the orders sought. The judgment did not decide an Ombudsman appeal or finally determine what added years might be awarded through that process.