Supreme Court hears DWP appeal in Bereavement Support Payment case

The Supreme Court has ruled against Daniel Jwanczuk and in favour of the Secretary of State in his long-running challenge to the Department for Work and Pensions over Bereavement Support Payment (BSP), the Public Law Project said on 20 November 2025¹. The DWP's further appeal to the Supreme Court was heard on 11 and 12 March 2025¹.

BSP is a non-means tested benefit intended to support eligible surviving partners with the immediate additional financial costs following a bereavement. It is available where a deceased partner paid some National Insurance contributions during their working life, known as the Contribution Condition¹. Mr Jwanczuk was denied BSP after his wife Suzzi's death in 2020 because she did not meet that condition, her disabilities having prevented her from working¹. The payment would have given him an initial £2,500, then £100 a month for 18 months, a total of £4,300¹.

He first took his judicial review case to the High Court, which ruled in his favour in September 2022, and the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in 2023¹. The Supreme Court found the discrimination in the case was justified, holding 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"¹. It found the government's aims for the Contribution Condition, which it identified as reducing the stigma of claiming benefits, simplifying the benefit system and ensuring greater certainty about entitlements, were legitimate and rational¹.

Mr Jwanczuk said the outcome was "a dark day for anyone like me, who wants the memory of their loved one to be respected and valued equally", and that the DWP had twice appealed to avoid paying bereavement support to him and others in his position¹. His lawyers at the Public Law Project said they still believe the refusal was discriminatory and that the DWP breached Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights¹. The charity WAY Widowed and Young and the National Bereavement Alliance both said they were disappointed; the National Bereavement Alliance noted that in 2022 the UK Commission on Bereavement called for the benefit to be extended to this group of grieving families¹.

A similar case in Northern Ireland, O'Donnell v Department for Communities, was heard by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in 2020, which found in favour of O'Donnell, whose partner had also been unable to work¹. Since that judgment, Northern Ireland has had a policy of paying BSP where the deceased family member was unable to work their entire working life because of disability or illness¹. The Public Law Project does not say whether an equivalent policy applies in the rest of the UK.

Why it matters for households

The ruling means the Contribution Condition stands as the test for Bereavement Support Payment across England, Scotland and Wales. Surviving partners whose husband, wife or civil partner could not work because of lifelong disability or illness, and so did not pay enough National Insurance, remain outside entitlement, as they were before the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions. The two earlier judgments in Mr Jwanczuk's favour have not produced a change in payment rules for this group. In Northern Ireland, the position differs: a policy introduced after the 2020 O'Donnell judgment provides for BSP to be paid in these circumstances¹.

The sums at stake are set out in the case: an initial £2,500 and £100 a month for 18 months, £4,300 in total¹. BSP is not means tested, so other income and savings do not affect eligibility, but the Contribution Condition is a separate test based on the deceased partner's National Insurance record¹. Bereavement payments sit within the wider benefits system, and the case concerns bereavement support specifically rather than Carer Support Payment or Carer's Allowance, which are separate benefits with their own rules.

What happens next

Mr Jwanczuk and his legal team are considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, and he said they are exploring every available route forward¹. The Public Law Project said it will continue to advise him on the possibility of appealing the outcome¹. No date has been reported for any application, and no further court hearing has been listed.