Lee Andrew v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
[2022] EWHC 2992 (Ch)
Roy Anthony Thomas v Southwark Council
31 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2739 (Ch)
High Court
A man applied for a pension after his partner died, but the council refused. The council and the pension official made mistakes about the rules. The court said the council needs to make a new decision using the correct rules.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Claudette Coke, a Southwark Council employee, died in March 2021.
- •Mr. Roy Thomas (appellant), Ms. Coke's former husband, applied for a cohabiting partner's pension and a lump-sum death grant.
- •Southwark Council (respondent) refused the application.
- •The Pensions Ombudsman found no financial loss but awarded £500 for distress.
- •Mr. Thomas appealed the Ombudsman's decision regarding the cohabiting partner's pension.
- •The respondent did not appear at the appeal.
- •The appeal focused on whether Mr. Thomas met the financial dependency/interdependency criteria for a cohabiting partner's pension.
Legal Principles
The Pensions Ombudsman's functions and appeals process are governed by Part X of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
Pension Schemes Act 1993, sections 146 and 151
Permission from the High Court is required to appeal the Pensions Ombudsman's determination.
Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Rule 52.29 and Practice Direction 52D, paragraph 5.1
For a cohabiting partner's pension under the LGPS Regulations 2013, the claimant must meet several conditions, including financial dependency or interdependency for at least two years before the member's death.
Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013, Regulation 41(1) and Schedule 1
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The respondent misinterpreted the LGPS Regulations by requiring proof of Ms. Coke's financial dependence on Mr. Thomas, and their reasoning was incoherent and based on a rejected premise (lack of cohabitation). The Ombudsman failed to adequately address these errors.
Mr. Thomas's application for a cohabiting partner's pension was remitted to the respondent for reconsideration.
The flawed decision-making process and incorrect application of the regulations led to injustice. A fresh decision with proper consideration of the evidence and correct legal principles is required.
Similar Cases
Duncan Campbell v NHS Business Services Authority
[2023] EWCA Civ 1351
Daniel Richard Jwanczuk v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2023] EWCA Civ 1156
SY v Personal Representatives of the Estate of DY
[2023] EWFC 280 (B)
Anne Dumbreck Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2023] EWCA Civ 890