The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to rules that exclude unmarried cohabitants from the widow’s, widowers’ or surviving civil partner’s contributory pension (WCP). The court held that the payment supports a surviving spouse or civil partner and is not a benefit to which their children are entitled.
Mr Justice Heslin delivered the judgment on 7 October 2022. The applicants were John O’Meara and three minor children, each suing through their father. The first applicant’s long-term partner died in January 2021. They had lived together for about 20 years but had not married or entered a civil partnership. The judgment says they had planned a registry-office marriage, but it was delayed during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The challenge argued that Chapter 18 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 was unconstitutional and incompatible with European human-rights law. The applicants’ counsel withdrew the EU-law arguments. The case focused on the children’s claim that they were indirectly discriminated against because their father could not qualify for WCP. The first applicant accepted that a claim based on his own exclusion would face considerable difficulty.
The court said WCP is payable to an eligible surviving spouse or civil partner regardless of whether that person has children. A qualified-child increase may be added, but the children do not become the beneficiaries. The judge concluded that the legislation’s purpose was to support the surviving spouse and promote marriage, and that the children had no entitlement to the pension or right to control how it was spent.
The judgment also relied on an earlier High Court decision, McGovern v Chief Appeals Officer, which had rejected a similar challenge. Applying the principle that a High Court judge should generally follow a recent decision of the same court absent strong reasons to depart, Mr Justice Heslin found no basis to depart. He said the UK cases cited by the applicants concerned benefits tied to the care or support of children and were materially different from WCP.
The court rejected the constitutional and European Convention arguments and dismissed the claim. The judgment did not settle costs or the precise form of order: it directed the parties to communicate about those matters and, if they could not agree, to file short written submissions within 14 days.