McLaughlin’s (Siobhan) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy J |
| Judgment Date | 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] NIQB 11 |
| Date | 09 February 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2016] NIQB 11 Ref: TRE9883
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 09/02/2016
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
McLaughlin’s (Siobhan) Application [2016] NIQB 11
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY SIOBHAN McLAUGHLIN FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
and
IN THE MATTER OF DECISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT (“DSD”)
________
TREACY J
Introduction
[1] The applicant challenges decisions of the Department for Social Development
(“the DSD”) refusing her benefits, after the death of her partner, in accordance with
the provisions of s36 and 39A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (NI)
Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). Mr David McMillan QC along with Ms Laura McMahon
appeared for the applicant and Mr Tony McGleenan QC along with Mr Donal Lunny
appeared for the respondent. I am grateful to both sets of Counsel for their detailed
written and oral submissions.
[2] The applicant lived with her partner as man and wife for 23 years. Her
partner died in January 2014. They had four children together and the applicant is
now the sole provider for their children aged 19, 17, 13 and 11 years old. A key
component of the family income is derived from State Benefits. Had the applicant
been married to her partner at the time of his death, she would have had an
entitlement to certain benefits. She has been refused payment of these benefits on
the sole ground that she was not married. Her claim for each of two state benefits
[Bereavement Benefit and Widowed Parent’s Allowance] was denied because she
was neither married nor a civil partner at the date of her partner’s death.
2
Order 53 Statement
[3] The relief sought is:
a. An Order of Certiorari to bring up to this
Honourable Court, and quash, the decision of the
Respondent refusing to pay the benefits to the
applicant;
b. If the 1992 Act can not be read and given effect
in a way that is compatible with Convention rights as
appears above, a declaration that the 1992 Act is
incompatible with the Applicant’s Convention rights
(as appears above) pursuant to s. 4 of the Human
Rights Act 1998.
c. If the 1992 Act cannot be read and given effect in
a way that is compatible with Convention rights as
appears above, a declaration that the there has been
an unlawful interference with the Applicant’s
Convention rights.
d. Damages
...”
[4] The grounds on which the relief is sought are:
a. The decision unlawfully discriminated against
the Applicant on the basis of marital status contrary
to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“The 1998
Act”) and Article 14 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (“The Convention”) in conjunction
with Article 8.
b. The decision unlawfully discriminated against
the Applicant on the basis of marital status contrary
to s. 6 of 1998 Act and Article 14 of the Convention in
conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol.
c. The decision failed to have any or adequate
regard for the Applicant’s private or family life and
her personal autonomy, as required by s. 6 of the
1998 Act and Article 8 of the Convention in choosing
not to enter into a marriage with Mr Adams.
To continue reading
Request your trial
9 cases
-
NA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (BB)
...for a spouse or civil partner, and not for a long-term unmarried cohabitant. 24. Treacy J, sitting in the High Court in Northern Ireland ([2016] NIQB 11), ruled that Ms McLaughlin’s claim for bereavement benefit must fail. However, Treacy J also held that (i) WPA was paid to diminish the fi......
-
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Nasim Akhtar
...and had not been appealed. Treacy J (as he then was) rejected the challenge to the lawfulness of BP: McLaughlin's (Siobhan) Application [2016] NIQB 11. He explained, at [66], under the heading “Bereavement Payment – Comparability”: “66. Through marriage (or civil partnership) a couple regul......
-
R Catherine Harvey v London Borough of Haringey
...absence of a ‘public contract’ in the form of marriage. However, he allowed her claim in respect of the widowed parents' allowance (see [2016] NIQB 11). The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent Department, holding that the denial of the latter benefit did not violate the Conv......
-
James Jackson v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
......His claim was refused on 9 April 2018. He made a further application which was again refused on 11 December 2018, on the ground that he was not married to, nor in a ......
Request a trial to view additional results