R (on the application of Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] UKSC 42

Mr Jwanczuk's wife was unable to work throughout her life due to severe disability and never paid national insurance contributions. After her death, he was refused Bereavement Support Payment because she did not meet the contribution condition. The Supreme Court held the contribution condition was justified and did not unlawfully discriminate against him.

Facts

The respondent, Daniel Jwanczuk, married Suzanne Jwanczuk who suffered from Ullrich congenital muscular dystrophy, a progressive degenerative condition that meant she was severely disabled throughout her life. She never worked or paid national insurance contributions. Following her death in November 2020, Mr Jwanczuk applied for Bereavement Support Payment (BSP) under the Pensions Act 2014 but was refused because his wife had not met the contribution condition requiring actual payment of Class 1 or Class 2 national insurance contributions during at least one tax year of her working life.

Procedural History

Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found in favour of Mr Jwanczuk, following the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision in O’Donnell v Department for Communities which held that the equivalent Northern Irish provision unlawfully discriminated against surviving spouses of persons unable to work due to lifelong disability.

Issues

The appeal raised four grounds: (1) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in following the Northern Ireland decision without reaching its own conclusion; (2) Whether the respondent had a valid ‘other status’ for Article 14 purposes; (3) Whether the contribution condition was justified; (4) If incompatible, whether section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 permitted reading down the legislation.

Judgment

Approach to Decisions from Other UK Jurisdictions

The Supreme Court clarified that decisions of appellate courts in different UK jurisdictions are not binding as a matter of precedent but should be treated with great respect. Lord Reed and Lady Simler stated:

However, appellate courts should not regard themselves as being under an obligation to follow decisions which they consider to be wrong. They do not require to identify some other compelling reason for departing from a wrong decision.

The strict approach in Abbott v Philbin applies only to tax legislation, not more broadly to welfare or employment law.

Other Status

The Court accepted that being the surviving partner of a person with lifelong inability to work through disability constitutes a valid ‘other status’ for Article 14 purposes. The status is objectively determinable through rational evaluation of established facts.

Justification

The Court held the contribution condition was justified. The aims of rewarding work, maintaining the contributory principle, ensuring administrative simplicity, and providing certainty were legitimate. Lord Reed and Lady Simler explained:

The contribution principle is a central policy principle. It ensures that individuals are encouraged to work and that the stigma of receiving a benefit is reduced.

The Court emphasised the wide margin of appreciation appropriate in welfare benefits cases involving Parliament’s economic and social policy judgments. The discriminatory impact did not outweigh the legitimate objectives pursued.

Remedy

The Court held that even if incompatibility existed, it would not be ‘possible’ under section 3 of the HRA to read in an exception, as this would go against the grain of legislation that Parliament specifically designed with only one narrow exception (death at work).

Implications

This judgment clarifies the approach UK appellate courts should take to decisions from other UK jurisdictions on identical legislation – respectful consideration but no obligation to follow decisions considered wrong. It reinforces the wide margin of appreciation afforded to Parliament in welfare benefits policy, particularly regarding the contributory principle. The decision emphasises judicial restraint in areas of economic and social policy, respecting the boundaries between legality and political process.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The contribution condition for Bereavement Support Payment does not unlawfully discriminate contrary to Article 14 read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The respondent is not entitled to BSP because no actual contributions were paid by his wife during her working life.

Source: R (on the application of Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UKSC/2023/0152)