Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Payout for Air Cdre Greenís Widow

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Payout for Air Cdre Greenís Widow

Old 18th Jul 2019, 06:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,009
Payout for Air Cdre Greenís 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”.



ORAC is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 08:11
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,790
Also see Good news for someone at last
spekesoftly is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 08:56
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,981
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?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 09:52
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
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?
The law of unintended consequences. Getting married made everyone clear cut. Everyone knew the rules as far as pension and rights are concerned.
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?
The Nip is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 09:57
  #5 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 70
Posts: 3,374
But why did she not get divorced??

Sadly I guess most of the "back pay" will go to lawyers.
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 09:57
  #6 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 72
Posts: 2,929
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.
Herod is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 10:27
  #7 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,009
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.

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.”
ORAC is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 12:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northamptonshire
Posts: 1,252
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
Old-Duffer is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 12:38
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,969
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.
racedo is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 18:33
  #10 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 70
Posts: 3,374
Let service personnel nominate person for pension
Exactly as the Civil Service do.....
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2019, 08:18
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
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.

Thank you, I understand that POV.

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.

The Nip is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.