[2025] UKUT 016 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2023-001878-BB

Between:

AET

Appellant

- v -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: Derek Stainsby (Plumsted Community Law Centre)

Respondent: Joshua J Bicknell (DMA Leeds)

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: 1673 4566 1368 2358

Tribunal Venue: Cardiff (on the papers)

Decision Date: 23 October 2023

Anonymity: The appellant in this case is anonymised in accordance with the practice of the Upper Tribunal described in Adams v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Green (CSM) [2017] UKUT 9 (AAC), [2017] AACR 28, i.e. on the basis that no party has objected to it and the practice does not prevent publication by a party or anyone else of the identities of the individuals involved in the case. Anyone who wishes to be informed of the identity of the parties may make an application to the Upper Tribunal, and the parties will be given notice and an opportunity to object if such an application is made.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

BEREAVEMENT PAYMENTS (3)

The Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2023 (SI 2023/134) (the 2023 Order) remedied the incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) identified by the High Court (Holman J) in R (Jackson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWHC 183 (Admin), [2020] 1 WLR 1441 by providing for cohabiting partners with dependent children to be entitled to Bereavement Support Payment (BSP) on the same basis as couples who are married or in a civil partnership. The 2023 Order had retrospective effect, introducing that new entitlement with effect from 30 August 2018. In this case, the Upper Tribunal decides that the new law only applies to claims made after the date of the coming into force of the 2023 Order on 9 February 2023. Claims made before that date still fall to be determined by reference to the previous rules.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION