Eccles (Joanne) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NIQB 111 |
| Date | 03 December 2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NIQB 111
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: SCO11692
ICOS No: 20/011083/01
Delivered: 03/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JOANNE ECCLES
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
___________
Ian Skelt QC and Gordon Anthony (instructed by Edwards & Co, solicitors) for the
Applicant
Tony McGleenan QC and Aidan Sands (instructed by the Departmental Solicitor’s
Office) for the Respondent
Philip McAteer (instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office) for the Notice Party
___________
SCOFFIELD J
Introduction
[1] By this application for judicial review, the applicant, Joanne Eccles, a
constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), seeks to challenge the
lawfulness of secondary legislation which renders her ineligible for the payment of a
survivor’s pension as the surviving partner of Sergeant Gary Dempster. The
relevant provisions are to be found in Part C of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
Pensions Regulations 1988 (SR 1988/374) (“the 1988 Regulations”).
[2] The respondent to the applicant is the Department of Justice for
Northern Ireland (“the Department”), which is the department of the devolved
administration responsible for the 1988 Regulations. The applicant initially also
proceeded against the Pensions Branch of the PSNI as a named respondent; but,
instead, the Chief Constable of the PSNI has been added as a notice party to the
proceedings. It was agreed that the question of any necessary relief against the
Pensions Branch could and should be revisited in the event that the applicant was
successful in her challenge to the 1988 Regulations.
[3] Mr Skelt QC appeared with Mr Anthony for the applicant; Mr McGleenan QC
appeared with Mr Sands for the respondent Department; and Mr McAteer appeared
2
for the Chief Constable as notice party. I am grateful to all counsel for their helpful
written and oral submissions.
Factual background
[4] Sgt Dempster sadly passed away on 15 June 2019. The applicant’s case is that,
at the time of his death, she and Sgt Dempster were cohabiting and had been living
together as unmarried partners for more than three years at that point. They met
through work and began a relationship in 2015, becoming engaged to be married
after around three months together. They began cohabiting in 2016 and intended to
marry in March 2017. In March 2016, however, the applicant became subject to
disciplinary proceedings in work (the details of which are not relevant for present
purposes), which she has averred caused her very significant stress, a result of which
was that she and Sgt Dempster decided to delay their planned wedding. Evidence
provided in the course of the proceedings substantiated the assertion that their
wedding had been planned for March 2017 but was then postponed. The applicant’s
difficulties in work continued, causing both her and (she avers) Sgt Dempster
considerable stress and concerns in relation to their mental health.
[5] The applicant has provided a variety of information about her relationship
with Sgt Dempster and their financial interdependence. When they began their
relationship, Sgt Dempster was separated from his then wife (with whom he had
two daughters). He then divorced. As noted above, they began cohabiting in 2016
and when they did so they lived in the applicant’s home. They maintained separate
bank accounts but Sgt Dempster made a significant monthly contribution towards
the applicant’s mortgage and also made periodic payments towards other outgoings
such as rates and repairs. The applicant provided financial details in support of her
averments to this effect. She also relied upon the fact that Sgt Dempster nominated
her as his next of kin for the purposes of the online human resources platform used
by the PSNI and had ensured that she was listed for that purpose as his fiancée (and
she had likewise identified him as her next of kin). She averred that they had also
discussed how he intended for her to be his next of kin for the purposes of his
pension.
[6] Significantly however, Sgt Dempster omitted to name the applicant as a
beneficiary under the Police Federation’s benefit scheme. This is a scheme which,
amongst other things, makes a significant one-off payment to the families of
members who have died. The applicant contends that this omission was
presumably because Sgt Dempster assumed that the changes he had made on the
PSNI’s e-services system (naming her as his next of kin for work purposes) were
comprehensive. In any event, Sgt Dempster’s ex-wife was still named as next of kin
at the time of his death for the purposes of the Federation’s benefit scheme.
Notwithstanding that, the Police Federation, acting on legal advice, declined to make
payment to the deceased’s ex-wife and instead recommended that the money should
be divided equally between Sgt Dempster’s daughters and the applicant. The
applicant received one-third of the relevant payment in 2019. (The respondent has
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Sharon Green v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
...in Carter at §9. An equivalent 1988 Northern Ireland police pension scheme (governed by SR 1988/374) was the subject of In re Eccles [2021] NIQB 111 (§54 below). The PPS applies in respect of “Scheme Members” who have at a relevant time been – and may still be – serving members of the polic......
-
Sharon Green v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...such support when circumstances altered so that their earlier need would generally be expected to be dissipated.”; and v) In re Eccles [2021] NIQB 111 which is about SPBs in the Northern Ireland equivalent of the PPS where an ineligibility regulation which provided SPBs for widows, widowers......
-
Ms R Henry v The Scottish Ministers: 4109409/2021
...review. I was referred for example to the decision of the High Court in Northern Ireland in the application by Joanne Eccles reported at [2021] NIQB 111. As Mr McGuire pointed out, it seems that the claimant was aware of this, given that she referenced in her witness statement discussions w......
-
RK's Application and in the matter of decisions of The Department of Communities
...as he did, I do not consider this a bar to proceeding to consider the question of justification. As I observed in Re Eccles’ Application [2021] NIQB 111, at para [31], it will be unsurprising in many cases for the status relied upon by the applicant to be closely, and perhaps inextricably, ......