An unmarried woman, forced to put her grief on hold whilst she fought for her rights to her partner’s military pension, has won a landmark case against the Royal Air Force (RAF).
Jane Langford had been in an exclusive and financially dependent relationship with her partner, Air Commodore Christopher Green, for over fifteen years when he died suddenly and unexpectedly in May 2011.
Although the RAF’s seemingly forward thinking approach to inheritance offered Ms Langford hope that she would be entitled to her partner’s military pension, she was denied access because of a discriminatory technicality.
Although the RAF pension scheme permits unmarried spouses to inherit a pension scheme, the RAF refused Ms Langford’s request because she was still officially married to her estranged ex-husband who she had not been in a relationship with for more than seventeen years.
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal found in favour of Ms Langford, claiming that the exclusionary clause was a clear breach of her human rights under the 1998 Human Rights Act.
The decision’s impact could be monumental and has the potential to help a lot of people who have faced similar exclusions from public sector, military and civil service pension schemes.
A similar exclusionary rule can be found in most UK Education, NHS, Civil Service, Police, Fire Service and Military pensions schemes. This could mean that the millions of current members, including many deceased members who have been affected in a similar way could be granted access to the pension, even if their loved ones have not dissolved their marriage with a previous partner.
It could also mean that those that have been previously excluded from pension money may be entitled to make a new claim with backdated pay.
June Langford, widow in the case, commented:
“I can’t take it in, I can’t believe it’s over and the worry I’ve had for the last eight years is gone.
“There hasn’t been much spare money. Now I can have a holiday, I can have my friends and children to stay, I can buy Christmas presents for my children.
“I’m so pleased if it can benefit others in a similar situation. I wouldn’t like to see anybody treated the way I was treated.”
What impact will this ruling have for unmarried couples in circumstances? Could the exclusionary rule have been circumvented with clear estate planning intentions from the deceased?
