Widower devastated by Supreme Court ruling on Bereavement Support

A widower, Daniel Jwanczuk, has been left “devastated” following a long legal battle over the Department of Work and Pension’s (DWP) refusal to pay Bereavement Support Payments (BSP) to surviving families of people who could not work due to life-long disability. 

BSP is a non-means tested benefit intended to support eligible surviving partners in meeting the immediate additional financial costs faced following a bereavement. This benefit is available if a deceased partner has paid some National Insurance (NI) contributions during their working life (the “Contribution Condition”).

Daniel was denied BSP after his Disabled wife’s death in 2020, because she did not meet the Contribution Condition due to her disabilities. Daniel challenged the DWP’s decision arguing that the decision was discriminatory. 

Daniel, who was represented by the charity Public Law Project, first took his judicial review case to the High Court, which ruled in his favour in September 2022. This judgment was also upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2023, but the DWP’s further appeal to the Supreme Court took place on 11 and 12 March 2025. 

Today, the Supreme Court ruled against Daniel and for the Secretary of State, citing that: “Mr Jwanczuk is not entitled to BSP because the Contribution Condition is not met. This result may seem harsh, and the Supreme Court does not underestimate the vulnerability of people in Mrs Jwanczuk’s position or the difficulties faced by their families. However, the courts must respect the boundaries between legality and the political process”.

Daniel Jwanczuk said:

“This is a dark day for anyone like me, who wants the memory of their loved one to be respected and valued equally. The DWP has twice appealed in order to avoid paying bereavement support to me and other loved ones of Disabled people who were unable to work during their lives.” 

“The money would have been a lifeline for me when I was at my lowest, after losing my beloved wife Suzzi. Suzzi lived with Ullrich congenital muscular dystrophy and other chronic complications and fought every day just to exist in a body that worked tirelessly against her. She was never able to work — not because she lacked the will but because her condition never gave her the chance to work a ‘normal’ day to day job and, to some degree, neither did society. Her entire life was shaped by a condition she didn’t choose, pain she suffered and discrimination she faced and fought against.”

“Yet the government’s position — now endorsed by the Supreme Court — is that because she couldn’t pay National Insurance, I don’t deserve BSP like other widows.” 

Judgement

In their judgment, the Supreme Court found that the discrimination in this case was justified and that “Parliament should be given a wide margin of appreciation in cases, like this one, which concern policy choices about the allocation of scarce public resources.”

The Court found that the government’s aims for requiring the Contribution Condition (reducing the stigma of claiming benefits; simplifying the benefit system; and ensuring greater certainty so that individuals understand what they are entitled to) were legitimate and rational.

Considering an appeal

Daniel and his legal team are considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Daniel said:

“If the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cannot see the injustice in punishing bereaved partners because their partners were too disabled to work, then I will take the fight to a court that can.

“My legal team and I are already exploring every available route forward — including but not limited to an application to the European Court of Human Rights. The cruelty baked into this decision cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.” 

Daniel’s lawyers at Public Law Project still believe the DWP’s refusal was discriminatory. 

Matthew Court, lawyer at Public Law Project, said: 

“We argued that the DWP breached Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights by denying BSP to Daniel, who was ineligible for BSP only because his partner was unable to make the required NI Contributions because she was unable to work throughout their life due to disability/illness. 

“Daniel should still be praised for bringing this important case, especially as these lengthy appeals have been an arduous four year experience for a grieving widower to go through.”

“Regardless of the outcome today, the DWP must do more to support the loved ones of Disabled people after bereavement who are ineligible for BSP because of their family member’s life-long disability.” 

“We are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s judgment, but we will continue to advise Daniel on the possibility of appealing this outcome and, we hope, bringing an end to BSP discrimination of this kind.” 

Chief Executive Stephanie Patrick, WAY Widowed and Young, said:

“We are incredibly disappointed by today’s Supreme Court’s judgment, but WAY Widowed and Young will continue to campaign on behalf of Daniel and other young widowed people in his position who have been denied this vital financial support at the time when they need it most. We thank Daniel for bringing this case all the way to the Supreme Court, with support from the Public Law Project, and we hope that Daniel’s courage to stand up for his rights will eventually bring an end to Bereavement Support Payment discrimination of this kind.”

Dr Alison Penny, Coordinator of the National Bereavement Alliance, said:

“We are very disappointed that the Supreme Court has overturned previous rulings that it is a breach of human rights to deny BSP to surviving families of people who could not work because of life-long disability. In 2022, the UK Commission on Bereavement called for this important benefit to be extended to this group of grieving families.

We pay tribute to the bravery of Mr Jwanczuk in bringing his private grief for his wife Suzzi into the public realm. We are grateful to him and the Public Law Project for fighting for the human rights of bereaved partners of people whose severe disabilities meant they were unable to work.” 

Background

Daniel’s deceased wife, Suzzi  Jwanczuk, was unable to work throughout her working life because of her disabilities. Friends since childhood, Daniel and Suzzi became romantically involved in 1995. Daniel became Suzzi’s full-time carer after her condition declined significantly. They were married from 2005 until Suzzi’s death in a hospice on 20 November 2020. 

When Daniel was looking for financial assistance in the aftermath of Suzzi’s death, he applied for BSP. He was rejected, on the grounds that Suzzi had not met the National Insurance contributions threshold (“the Contribution Condition”) necessary for Daniel to be eligible for BSP – a condition she was unable to meet because her life-long disabilities meant she was unable to work. BSP would have provided Daniel with an initial payment of £2,500, then £100 a month for 18 months, a total of £4,300.

Daniel is grateful to the charity WAY Widowed and Young who supported him emotionally after Suzzi’s death. 

A similar case in Northern Ireland was heard by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in 2020 ( O’Donnell v Department for Communities), where the court found in favour of O’Donnell, whose partner had been unable to work throughout their working life. Since the O’Donnel judgment Northern Ireland introduced a policy for paying BSP to individuals where the deceased family member was unable to work their entire working life due to disability or illness. 

Daniel is represented by Matthew Court and Hannah Moxsom at Public Law Project and Ben Jaffey KC of Blackstone Chambers and Tom Royston of Garden Court North. Daniel was also represented in the High Court and Court of Appeal by the late Catherine Callaghan KC of Blackstone Chambers and by Alice Stevens (previously of Public Law Project).