Appeal no. UA-2025-000907-BB
Between:
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Appellant
- v -
GM
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs
Decided on 28 March 2026 without a hearing.
Representation:
Secretary of State: DMA Leeds
Claimant: Represented himself
Summary: Bereavement and death benefits (3.1)
Claim for Bereavement Support Payment – Secretary of State refused claim on ground that contribution condition in section 31(1)(a) of the Pensions Act 2014 not satisfied - First-tier Tribunal applied the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – Upper Tribunal set aside the tribunal’s decision and applied the decision of the Supreme Court.
[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 of Upper Tribunal
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Reference: 1682-1473-1694-1386
Decision date: 12 August 2024 (date of written reasons)
Hearing: Barnsley
As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error in point of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the decision is RE-MADE.
The decision is: the claimant was not entitled to a Bereavement Support Payment on his claim of 10 February 2023 in respect of his late partner.
Reasons for Decision
This appeal concerns a claim by GM for a Bereavement Support Payment following the sad death of his partner on 23 November 2021.
The Secretary of State refused GM’s claim on the ground that his partner had not satisfied the condition in section 31(1)(a) of the Pensions Act 2014:
For the purposes of section 30(1)(d) the contribution condition is that, for at least one tax year during the deceased’s working life-
he or she actually paid Class 1 or Class 2 national insurance contributions, …
GM’s partner had never paid any contributions in any single tax year. She had been unable to work on account of her mental health, but that did not alter the fact that she had paid no contributions.
GM exercised his right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal applied the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] EWCA Civ 1156, [2024] KB 275. Following that case, the tribunal allowed GM’s appeal.
I gave the Secretary of State permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision under reference [2025] UKSC 42. The Court decided:
… we are satisfied not only that the three aims [relied on by the Secretary of State] are legitimate and rationally connected to the imposition of the contribution condition but also that the contribution condition is justified and strikes the necessary fair balance in this case.
I do not criticise the First-tier Tribunal for making the decision it did on the law as it stood at the time. However, the way that our legal system works means that the Supreme Court’s decision has retrospective effect and renders the decision of the First-tier Tribunal wrong in law. It follows that I must set its decision aside. In the circumstances, there was only one decision that the tribunal should have given, which was to confirm the decision of the Secretary of State refusing GM’s claim.
I gave GM the chance to make a submission on the appeal. He has done so, but his remarks relate to the fairness of allowing the Secretary of State to challenge the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. The fact is that the Secretary of State was given permission to appeal and it is too late to change that. The position is now governed by the decision of the Supreme Court. In those circumstances, I did not invite the Secretary of State to reply to GM’s submission.
Authorised for issue | Edward Jacobs |