C v Minister for Social Protection & anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a sentenced prisoner, applied for the State Pension (Contributory). Section 249(1)(b) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 (“the 2005 Act”) automatically disqualified persons “undergoing imprisonment” from receiving that pension. After the Minister refused payment, the Appellant commenced High Court proceedings challenging the provision’s constitutionality. The High Court rejected the claim, but the Supreme Court (Judge MacMenamin delivering the principal 27 July 2017 judgment with all other Justices concurring) held that, because successive statutory amendments and regulations had narrowed the disqualification so that it applied only to convicted prisoners, the measure had become an additional punishment not imposed by a court. The Court therefore found the subsection inconsistent with Articles 34 and 38.1 of the Constitution (judicial‐powers clauses).

Rather than make an immediate order, the Court adjourned the matter to receive submissions on the proper remedy (“remedy hearing”). On 28 November 2018 four judgments were delivered—by Judge O’Donnell (majority), Judge MacMenamin, Judge McKechnie (concurring) and the Chief Justice (concurring)—resolving the form of declaration and the Appellant’s monetary claim.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court possesses a jurisdiction to defer or suspend a declaration of unconstitutionality and, if so, in what circumstances it should be exercised.
2. Whether section 249(1)(b) of the 2005 Act should now be formally declared inconsistent with the Constitution and, if declared invalid, from what date that invalidity operates.
3. Whether a person affected by an unconstitutional statute is, without more, entitled to damages or retroactive payment of the benefit withheld.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• Section 249(1)(b) is unconstitutional and should be declared wholly void ab initio; immediate invalidity is required by Article 15.4.2.
• Because invalidity dates from enactment, the Appellant is statutorily entitled to back-payments of pension or, alternatively, constitutional damages.
• Suspended or deferred declarations have no footing in the Irish Constitution and, even if available, are inappropriate here.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The Court may, in exceptional cases, delay or suspend declarations to safeguard legal order; this is such a case.
• If invalidity is declared, its temporal effect should be prospective only; otherwise large unquantified liabilities may arise.
• Damages are not automatic; no personal constitutional right of the Appellant was infringed and the Minister merely applied legislation presumed valid.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Jurisdiction to defer or suspend declarations. All judges agreed that Irish courts possess a limited power to postpone or suspend the operative effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality. The power is exceptional and justified only where immediate invalidation would gravely disturb legal order, public safety, or the separation of powers. Comparative jurisprudence (especially Canadian) was used illustratively but the power was grounded in Articles 34 and 15.4.2 as interpreted in Irish case-law.

2. Form and timing of the declaration. The Court unanimously declared that the words “is undergoing imprisonment” in s. 249(1)(b) are inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid. A majority (Judge O’Donnell, the Chief Justice, Judge McKechnie and Judge O’Malley) treated the subsection as void from the point at which its scope became confined to convicted prisoners; Judge MacMenamin considered invalidity to operate only prospectively from the date of judgment.

3. Damages/arrears claim. All judges rejected the notion that damages flow automatically from a finding of invalidity. The majority held that:

• The Appellant had no personal constitutional property right in the pension—only a statutory expectancy.
• The Minister’s application of the statute, presumed constitutional until struck down, was not a tort or wrong.
• By analogy with Murphy, broad restitution would confer an undeserved windfall and disrupt public finances.
• Nonetheless, justice required a modest ex-gratia payment limited to approximately the period of the litigation; the Court fixed €10,000, acknowledging €7,500 already paid.

Judge MacMenamin would have awarded no monetary relief, emphasising the absence of direct loss and the purely prospective nature of the declaration he favoured.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: Section 249(1)(b) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 is declared inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.

Implications: The disqualification of prisoners from contributory pensions ceases immediately; the Oireachtas must redesign the regime if it wishes to regulate payments to detainees. The decision confirms—though restricts—the Court’s power to defer or suspend declarations, clarifies that damages are not automatic after a finding of unconstitutionality, and signals that windfall restitution will be limited in line with Murphy-type considerations. No broader constitutional right to social-welfare payments was recognised, and no new damages doctrine was created.