A retired solicitor’s appeal against a refusal to grant him a State contributory pension has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Philip Meagher (88), who was Laois county coroner before retiring in 1996, claimed the Minister for Social Protection had not properly interpreted legislation governing qualifying requirements for the contributory pension which is based on PRSI contributions made during a person’s working life.

The Supreme Court said the terms of the legislation made it “logically impossible” for Mr Meagher to qualify.

Failure to uphold the Minister’s view of the scheme would seriously undermine its overall structure, even if there were a limited number of people in the same situation as Mr Meagher, it said.

At the centre of the case was the number of PRSI contributions which a person has to make to be eligible. Mr Meagher made 221 and the Minister said he needed the minimum of 260.

Mr Justice William McKechnie, on behalf of the three-judge court, said it was to be regretted the Minister did not act on a recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, which examined the issue of PRSI contributions in cases like Mr Meagher’s, that an ex-gratia payment be made to him to achieve a just solution of the matter.

Mr Justice McKechnie said Mr Meagher reached pension age (66) in 1992, although he did not retire fully as both solicitor and coroner until 1996. In 1999, the entry age was raised to 62 – but with it came the requirement that the number of contributions required to be eligible went up from 156 to 260. From 1997, Mr Meagher made a number of unsuccessful applications in relation to the pension, including one to the Ombudsman, Mr Justice McKechnie said.

In 2006, the Human Rights Commission made its ex-gratia payment recommendation after carrying out an inquiry into the impact of certain parts of social welfare law on the self-employed, which the Minister did not act on.