Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Phillip Buckley (BB): [2026] UKUT 291 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Citron on 31 July 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The respondent in this appeal, Mr Buckley, suffered the bereavement of his partner in 2018; at the time, cohabiting partners could not claim bereavement support payment; but the law was changed, retrospectively, by a “remedial order” in 2023, and Mr Buckley claimed bereavement support payment then. He was, however, refused the higher rate of bereavement support payment, as he did not satisfy the condition of having become entitled to child benefit, after the bereavement, in respect of a child or qualifying young person who was living with the claimant or their deceased partner immediately prior to the partner’s death. This was because, despite otherwise meeting the conditions for entitlement to child benefit in respect of a child he had with his deceased partner and who lived with them prior to the partner’s death, Mr Buckley had not actually claimed child benefit following the bereavement (and, by the time he claimed bereavement support payment in 2023, he was no longer eligible to claim child benefit).
The First-tier Tribunal allowed Mr Buckley’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deny him the higher rate of bereavement support payment. Although it was a condition of the higher rate of bereavement support payment that Mr Buckley had, after the bereavement, become entitled to child benefit under section 141 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and section 13 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, with which the former Act was to be read, provided that entitlement to child benefit required the making of a valid claim, the First-tier Tribunal held that “entitlement” in section 141, in this particular context, meant entitlement “to be paid”, and did not require the making of a claim.
The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal, with the permission of First-tier Tribunal.
The Upper Tribunal holds that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law. The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is to be read with Social Security Administration Act 1992 (as set out in section 177 of the former Act), and so entitlement under section 141 of the former Act requires making of a valid claim for child benefit (as laid out in the latter Act). Mr Buckley had not made such a claim, and so was not eligible for the higher rate of bereavement support payment. The appeal is allowed and the First-tier Tribunal’s decision is re-made, dismissing Mr Buckley’s appeal against the original decision of the Secretary of State.