Published on 10 June 2025
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 20367/24
K.S. and Others against the United Kingdom
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 22 May 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the Government’s policy of providing benefit payments to a surviving parent if his or her partner dies and there is one or more dependent child. Prior to 9 February 2023, these benefits could only be claimed by parents who were married to, or were in a civil partnership with, the deceased at the time of death. Under section 39A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”), a widowed parent’s allowance (“WPA”) was payable to spouses and civil partners in respect of deaths occurring before 6 April 2017. Under section 30(1) and 30(4)(a) of the Pensions Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”), bereavement support payments (“BSP”) were generally payable at a higher rate to parent spouses and civil partners in respect of deaths occurring on or after 6 April 2017.
On 30 August 2018, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom issued a judgment declaring legislation in Northern Ireland equivalent to the 1992 Act incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention, read with Article 8, in so far as it precluded any entitlement to WPA by a surviving unmarried partner of the deceased (“the McLaughlin judgment”). On 7 February 2020, the High Court in London declared section 30(4)(a) of the 2014 Act, read with Section 30(1), to be incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention, read with Article 8, in so far as it limited the availability of BSP at a higher rate to surviving parents who were spouses or civil partners of the deceased (“the Jackson judgment”).
In response to the above declarations of incompatibility, the Government introduced the Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2023 SI No. 134 (“the Remedial Order”). The Remedial Order came into force on 9 February 2023 and amended the 1992 and 2014 Acts so as to extend the availability of WPA and BSP to “cohabiting partners” as well as spouses and civil partners. Such amendments had effect from 30 August 2018, i.e. the date of the McLaughlin judgment.
The present applications were brought by parents (together with their children) whose initial claims for WPA or BSP were refused by the Government on the basis that they were not married to, or in a civil partnership with, their partners at the time of death. The parent applicants successfully claimed WPA or BSP after the coming into force of the Remedial Order, but subsequently brought complaints before this Court under Article 13 and Article 14 read with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on the basis that the payments received were backdated to 30 August 2018, rather than the (earlier) dates on which their partners (the child applicants’ parents) died.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies with the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
To the extent not already cited in the applications, the parties are invited to provide references to any known proceedings instituted and/or judgments handed down within the United Kingdom concerning the limited retrospective nature of the Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2023 SI No. 134.
2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
3. If so, and considering the terms of the Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2023 SI No. 134, do the applicants remain “victims” of the violation of their rights under Article 14 within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?
In particular, did the judgments of In the matter of an application by Siobhan Mclaughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 48 and Jackson and others v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWHC 183 (Admin), as a matter of domestic law, have limited temporal effect (see, mutatis mutandis, Grant v. the United Kingdom (no. 32570/03, ECHR 2006-VII)) or did they state what the law has always been?
4. Considering the Court’s approach in Bizjak v. Slovenia (no. 25516/12, §§ 43-44 and 48-49, 18 July 2014), and in view of James and Others v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1986, § 85, Series A no. 98) and A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, § 112, ECHR 2002-X), is Article 13 of the Convention applicable to these cases?
5. If so, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality
Represented by
1.
20367/24
K.S. and Others
v. the United Kingdom
15/07/2024
K.S.
1979
British
D.S.
2012
British
K.S.
2010
British
Child Poverty Action Group
2.
20391/24
S.D. and B.D.
v. the United Kingdom
15/07/2024
S.D.
1983
British
B.D.
2016
British
3.
28982/24
A.B. and Others
v. the United Kingdom
03/10/2024
A.B.
1971
British
C.B.
1999
British
J.B.
2001
British
Leigh Day
4.
29144/24
J.G. and O.L.
v. the United Kingdom
03/10/2024
J.G.
1973
French
O.L.
2012
British