The High Court has refused Star Homes (Midleton) Limited’s application to quash a Pensions Ombudsman determination requiring the company to pay €69,850 to the Construction Workers Pension Scheme in respect of the death in service benefit due to Anna Szeffs and her two dependent children.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 21 December 2010, concerned the Ombudsman’s 2 March 2010 determination. It found that Pawel Szeffs, who died on 19 November 2005, was employed by Star Homes when he died. The Ombudsman held the company liable for the financial loss caused by maladministration and directed it to pay the scheme within 30 days. The benefit calculation was €63,500 plus €3,175 for each of two dependent children.
Star Homes sought judicial review, arguing that it should have been given an oral hearing to address disputed facts, including whether Mr Szeffs remained employed at his death and why a P45 was dated 22 November 2005 despite the company’s account that it had been given to him on 18 November. The company also argued that the procedure breached natural justice and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Ombudsman and Mrs Szeffs opposed the application.
The court said there was no general right to an oral hearing and that the need for one depended on the circumstances. It concluded that Star Homes had not provided a concrete explanation for the P45 date in its written submissions or shown that an oral hearing was needed to resolve the issue. The judgment also cited inconsistencies in the company’s accounts of when Mr Szeffs’s employment ended, who received the P45, and its employment records.
The court noted that the Ombudsman had found Mr Szeffs was employed from 1 June 2004 and that contributions required under the Registered Employment Agreement had not been paid during his employment. The court’s decision was about whether to grant judicial review; it did not replace the Ombudsman’s determination with a new assessment of the benefit.
The judge also said an appeal was the more appropriate route for the factual dispute. He cited the company’s failure to disclose its statutory appeal when seeking leave for judicial review and its delay after being told in September 2009 that there would be no oral hearing as further reasons to refuse relief. The application was refused.