Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v KLQ: [2026] UKUT 156 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Ovey on 20 April 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The Upper Tribunal decided that the provisions of the European Union Withdrawal Agreement continued to apply to a Swedish national to whom they applied at the end of the transition period after his acquisition of British citizenship. It further decided that the decision in SE v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] UKUT 405 (AAC) applied not only to cases in which it was contended that a derivative right under the social security co-ordination legislation displaced the independent right of a claimant as a United Kingdom resident but also to cases where it was contended that an independent right of the claimant as a pensioner of an EU state displaced his independent right as a United Kingdom resident.
The claimant was born in Iraq and moved to Sweden in 1988, where he remained until 1998, when he came to the United Kingdom. While in Sweden, he acquired the right to a Swedish retirement pension. He resided in the United Kingdom from 1998 onwards and was employed at all material times. He is prospectively entitled to a United Kingdom retirement pension. He acquired British citizenship in 2021 and is a dual Swedish/British national. His wife is in receipt of the care component of personal independence payment and it was accepted that he gave her care for at least 35 hours a week. His employment terminated on 16th November 2022 and the next day he applied for carer’s allowance backdated to 17th August 2022. Since October 2022 he had been in receipt of his Swedish pension, which was payable from the age of 62.
At the end of the transitional period of withdrawal from the European Union on 31st December 2020 the claimant fell within art. 30 of the European Union Withdrawal Agreement and so Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 applied to him. By the time of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal the Secretary of State accepted that the United Kingdom was the competent state for the purposes of the Regulation until 21st November 2022 (the end of the benefit week in which he ceased to be employed) but maintained that thereafter the competent state was Sweden rather than the United Kingdom because of his pension entitlement. The tribunal judge was concerned that his status as a British citizen had not been recognised. At the hearing itself that was accepted by the presenting officer, but it transpired that from 22nd November 2022 onwards the claimant had an award of universal credit including the carer element and on that ground was not entitled to receive carer’s allowance. The tribunal judge decided that the United Kingdom was the competent state, but on the basis that the claimant was a British citizen and in effect that superseded his rights under the Withdrawal Agreement. The Secretary of State appealed, contending that by virtue of arts. 24, 25 and 29 of the Regulation the competent state after the claimant ceased employment was Sweden.
At that time, the Secretary of State was intending to appeal against the decision in SE v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] UKUT 405 (AAC) in which in similar circumstances but involving a right derived from the relevant pensioner’s right it was decided, effectively applying the Court of Appeal’s decision in Harrington v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] 1 W.L.R. 3473, that the United Kingdom remained the competent state of a United Kingdom resident although a family member was entitled to receive a pension from another state. The Secretary of State subsequently withdrew the appeal and invited the Upper Tribunal to set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal because it was based on British citizenship but to remake the decision to the effect that the United Kingdom was the competent state. The Upper Tribunal therefore had to decide (i) whether the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement continued to apply to the claimant and (ii) whether, if so, the United Kingdom was the competent state despite the claimant’s own right to a Swedish pension. The decision is that the claimant retained his rights under the Withdrawal Agreement, with the consequence that the Regulation continued to apply after his acquisition of British citizenship, and that the United Kingdom remained the competent state both during his employment, by virtue of art. 11.3(a) of the Regulation, and after he ceased to be employed, by virtue of art. 11.3(e).