Margaret Kelly v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] EWCA Civ 613
Daniel Richard Jwanczuk v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
11 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1156
Court of Appeal
A man's wife died, and he couldn't get a bereavement payment because she was disabled and never worked enough to qualify. A judge said this was unfair, and a higher court agreed, saying similar cases in other parts of the UK should be handled the same way, ensuring fairness for disabled people.
Key Facts
- •Daniel Jwanczuk claimed bereavement support payment (BSP) after his wife's death.
- •His wife suffered from Ullrich congenital muscular dystrophy and never paid National Insurance Contributions (NICs).
- •The claim was refused because the deceased did not meet the contribution condition (section 31 of the Pensions Act 2014).
- •Jwanczuk argued that the contribution condition was indirectly discriminatory under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read with Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1.
- •Kerr J held that the Act could be construed to meet the contribution condition if the deceased was unable to comply due to lifelong disability.
- •The Secretary of State appealed this decision.
Legal Principles
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination.
European Convention on Human Rights
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires primary and subordinate legislation to be interpreted compatibly with Convention rights, as far as possible.
Human Rights Act 1998
Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows for a declaration of incompatibility if a provision is incompatible with Convention rights.
Human Rights Act 1998
The Abbott v Philbin rule dictates that courts should generally follow decisions of other UK appellate courts on identical issues concerning UK-wide statutes, unless compelling reasons exist.
Abbott v Philbin [1960] 1 Ch 27
In Article 14 discrimination cases concerning social security benefits, the court applies the Bank Mellat four-step proportionality test to determine justification.
R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held that the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal's decision in O'Donnell was not clearly wrong and should be followed under the Abbott v Philbin rule. While expressing some doubts about aspects of the O'Donnell reasoning, they did not find those doubts compelling enough to overturn it. The court also held that reading in an exception to the contribution condition under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act was possible.