AR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (BB)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Farbey (CP),Judge Ward,Judge Church |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 165 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Date | 26 May 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Bereavement,death benefits,Human rights law,death benefits - bereaved parents allowance,Human rights law - application of Human Rights Act,Three Judge Panel |
| Published date | 15 June 2020 |
AR v SSWP [2020] UKUT 165 (AAC)
Case No: CG/1781/2017
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Before: MRS JUSTICE FARBEY CP
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARD
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHURCH
Date of decision: 26 May 2020
DECISION
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Rochdale on 14
March 2017 under reference SC947/16/01669 did not involve the making of an error on a
point of law and is not set aside.
REASONS
Introduction and facts
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement
Chamber) (“the FtT”) confirming the respondent's decision to refuse the appellant's claim
for bereavement benefit following the death of her partner. The appellant met her partner
in about 2004 and they began living together in about 2008. On 25 September 2010 the
couple entered into a religious marriage ceremony (Nikah) in accordance with Islamic
principles.
2. The appellant’s evidence to the FtT was that she and her partner entered into the Nikah
believing that all the requirements for a valid marriage under English law were met. Two
or three months afterwards, she had “double checked” with Oldham Registry Office as to
the formalities required for a Nikah to be recognised under English law, in order to
reassure herself that the marriage was valid. The appellant’s evidence to the FtT is not
consistent with her witness statement made in judicial review proceedings in the
Administrative Court which says that she had checked with the Registry Office before –
not after - the Nikah. However, nothing turns on this. Before us, the parties were agreed
that, in order to be recognised as a matter of English law, the Nikah was required to be
registered with the Registrar General at the General Register Office, and that it was not
registered.
3. Following the Nikah the couple held themselves out to their family and their community
as married. They had two daughters, born in 2011 and 2014.
4. On 22 April 2016, some 5 years and 7 months after the date of the Nikah, the appellant’s
partner sadly died. The appellant made an application for bereavement benefit (i.e.
bereavement payment and widowed parent’s allowance). On 11 August 2016 a decision-
maker on behalf of the respondent refused the appellant’s application on the basis that the
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
FS v RS
...(2009), Glor v Switzerland (Application no. 13444/04) (2009), In re McLaughlin [2018] UKSC 48, [2018] 1 WLR 4250, and AR v SSWP [2020] UKUT 165 (AAC). None of these is in point and none, in my judgment, 98 For all these reasons, the applicant fails to make good his case based on the Conve......