Solicitor did not make requisite social insurance qualifying contributions to qualify for State contributory pension

McKechnie J (nem diss): Self-employed solicitor and Coroner for County Laois seeking a state contributory half pension – brought a Special Summons challenging the validity of the decision to refuse him a state contributory half pension - must demonstrate that he has made social insurance qualifying contributions (PRSI) for a period of 260 contribution weeks – statutory interpretation - procedural process of appeal to the High Court - statutory appeal on a point of law - no point has been taken in either court as to the scope or parameters of such appeal - appeal proceeded in the Supreme Court in exactly the same way as it had been argued in the High Court - Background to PRSI - all employees and self-employed persons pay PRSI - between the ages of 16 and 66, paid by those who earn more than €5,000 per year - classes or rates of contribution - largely determined by the nature of one’s employment and the salary received or earned - presently about 10 different classes - most, but not all, employees are in Class A - all self employed persons make “Class S” contributions - many people fall into both categories and are therefore regarded as concurrent contributors – compulsory - paid into a social insurance fund which has a current account - steps taken by the self-employed solicitor in seeking a pension - Appeals Officer held that in the appellant’s retirement tax year, he had made 13 self-employed contributions (Class S), as well as an equal number of Class A contributions - capped the entire number of all contributions - he did not invoke the formula as outlined in the Social Welfare Regulations - simply added 13 contribution weeks to those of previous years, which in total fell short of the required number - claimed by the self-employed solicitor that the Appeals Officer was in serious error - the legislative provisions for reduced State contributory pension– self-employed solicitor’s case that in respect of those people who, on or before 6th April, 1988, had attained the age of 56, 57, 58, 59 or 60, but not 61, all had at least five full working years within which to make the required 260 weekly contributions, before reaching pensionable age - those who were 61 as of that date, did not have such period available to them - necessary to provide some alternative method of qualification for this group, as those within it also clearly met the age and entry requirement, of the section – whether there is an alternative method of qualification - court is not involved in applying some jurisdiction based on reasonable grounds or on equitable considerations - intention of the legislature through the ordinary and natural meaning of the words and phrases used - guidance on the interpretation of a “deeming” statutory provision.