Payout for Air Cdre Green’s Widow
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Payout for Air Cdre Green’s Widow
Though I do fell the wording of the headline in poor taste. 8 years is also a long time to wait for a judgement and a pension when you are already at retirement age.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...icer-09rcfqhqs
RAF payout for woman in relationship with officer
A woman has won the right to financial compensation from the RAF after the death of her officer partner even though she never divorced her estranged husband.
Appeal judges overturned an earlier decision and allowed Jane Langford to claim under the armed forces compensation scheme after Air Commodore Christopher Green died at the age of 52. Ms Langford, who is in her early seventies, had lived with the RAF officer for 15 years until he died unexpectedly in 2011. She had remained married despite having been separated from her husband for 17 years.
Under the armed forces scheme, partners of military personnel are entitled to a bereavement grant and guaranteed income until death. Ms Langford claimed that a rule that excludes partners of members of the armed forces who remain married to another person was “unlawfully discriminatory”. At a hearing last month Chris Buttler, her barrister, argued that it was “disproportionately harsh to withhold benefits from those who have lost a breadwinner for want of compliance with a technicality”.
The decision at the Court of Appeal yesterday found that the rule was “unlawful and cannot be justified”.
Lord Justice McCombe, sitting with Lord Justice Leggatt and Lord Justice Baker, said that the “broad exclusionary rule” was “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”. He added: “It is a legitimate aim of the scheme to achieve parity of treatment between married and unmarried partners of scheme members. But such parity is in reality achieved not by imposing restrictions based on a partner’s marital status, but by requiring the demonstration of a substantial, exclusive and financially dependent relationship in practice.”
The judge emphasised that the decision applied specifically to Ms Langford’s case and said he could not rule out that exclusionary terms might be used in a “justified and proportionate” way in the future.
Graeme Fraser, a member of Resolution, a family law group, said that the judgment would “help remedy an important aspect of the injustices that cohabitants up and down the country face on a daily basis”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...icer-09rcfqhqs
RAF payout for woman in relationship with officer
A woman has won the right to financial compensation from the RAF after the death of her officer partner even though she never divorced her estranged husband.
Appeal judges overturned an earlier decision and allowed Jane Langford to claim under the armed forces compensation scheme after Air Commodore Christopher Green died at the age of 52. Ms Langford, who is in her early seventies, had lived with the RAF officer for 15 years until he died unexpectedly in 2011. She had remained married despite having been separated from her husband for 17 years.
Under the armed forces scheme, partners of military personnel are entitled to a bereavement grant and guaranteed income until death. Ms Langford claimed that a rule that excludes partners of members of the armed forces who remain married to another person was “unlawfully discriminatory”. At a hearing last month Chris Buttler, her barrister, argued that it was “disproportionately harsh to withhold benefits from those who have lost a breadwinner for want of compliance with a technicality”.
The decision at the Court of Appeal yesterday found that the rule was “unlawful and cannot be justified”.
Lord Justice McCombe, sitting with Lord Justice Leggatt and Lord Justice Baker, said that the “broad exclusionary rule” was “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”. He added: “It is a legitimate aim of the scheme to achieve parity of treatment between married and unmarried partners of scheme members. But such parity is in reality achieved not by imposing restrictions based on a partner’s marital status, but by requiring the demonstration of a substantial, exclusive and financially dependent relationship in practice.”
The judge emphasised that the decision applied specifically to Ms Langford’s case and said he could not rule out that exclusionary terms might be used in a “justified and proportionate” way in the future.
Graeme Fraser, a member of Resolution, a family law group, said that the judgment would “help remedy an important aspect of the injustices that cohabitants up and down the country face on a daily basis”.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
While good news in one sense, does this not open up another bag of worms?
As she has been cohabiting for 15 years she now gets his pension, but she remains married to the other guy, so does she inherit his estate or his pension, unless he has amended his will etc?
As she has been cohabiting for 15 years she now gets his pension, but she remains married to the other guy, so does she inherit his estate or his pension, unless he has amended his will etc?
Having grey areas whereby being in a relationship/cohabiting is concerned leads to misuse.
How long is 'being in a relationship/cohabiting' taken into account before you can claim someone's pension etc?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
How does this translate to civilians? AFAIK, a "common-law" spouse has no legal rights. With respect to the lady, if she wasn't divorced from her husband, she wasn't married to the Air Commodore. Not begrudging the payment, just curious.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The Nip, Herod.
I believe it is the position that there is no black and white based on a marriage certificate, there are exceptions, and these have to be considered in a reasonable way. Which may indeed be a judgement cited in similar civil cases.
I believe it is the position that there is no black and white based on a marriage certificate, there are exceptions, and these have to be considered in a reasonable way. Which may indeed be a judgement cited in similar civil cases.
Lord Justice McCombe, sitting with Lord Justice Leggatt and Lord Justice Baker, said that the “broad exclusionary rule” was “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”. He added: “It is a legitimate aim of the scheme to achieve parity of treatment between married and unmarried partners of scheme members. But such parity is in reality achieved not by imposing restrictions based on a partner’s marital status, but by requiring the demonstration of a substantial, exclusive and financially dependent relationship in practice.”
A few years ago an RM major, who was killed in the Gulf, had the child by his girlfriend accepted as being NofK and something similar happened to Trooper Bradley Tinnion an SAS soldier killed by the West Side Boys, whose G/F was pregnant.
At one stage if my wife (then sqn ldr WRAF) had died in service I would not have received any rights to her service pension but if the reverse was the case, she would have had mine. Before that there was a rather confusing business of the 1/3rd pension and I paid into a fund for a 1/2 rate widows pension, only for the law to change after I'd shelled out a goodly sum.
O-D
At one stage if my wife (then sqn ldr WRAF) had died in service I would not have received any rights to her service pension but if the reverse was the case, she would have had mine. Before that there was a rather confusing business of the 1/3rd pension and I paid into a fund for a 1/2 rate widows pension, only for the law to change after I'd shelled out a goodly sum.
O-D
Meet on a Monday, marry on a friday, deploy on Saturday, die on a Sunday and state pays pension for decades afterwards.
Live together for 15-20 years, never marry or divorce from previous, deploy and die and partner gets nothing.
Let service personnel nominate person for pension BUT where kids involved make sure they provided for as person married with 2 kids 3 and 4 and then takes up and nominates local stripper as partner night before deployment needs to be reviewed.
Require everyone to review every 12 months.
Live together for 15-20 years, never marry or divorce from previous, deploy and die and partner gets nothing.
Let service personnel nominate person for pension BUT where kids involved make sure they provided for as person married with 2 kids 3 and 4 and then takes up and nominates local stripper as partner night before deployment needs to be reviewed.
Require everyone to review every 12 months.
My view is that it is subjective. Public/media pressure will have an effect. Rank could also be be a factor.
Will Gurkhas and Commonwealth servicemen/women be treated equally as they should?
When these grey areas are created, they cause the unintended consequences which then dilute the original rules.
