Beyond the Landmark Judgment: Securing Justice for Bereaved Families

Siobhan’s story.

Siobhan McLaughlin had been living with her partner John for 23 years and they had four children together. When John died from cancer in 2014, Siobhan was shocked to discover that she was denied access to bereavement benefits to support her family because she had been unmarried. As a result, Siobhan had to take on three jobs and work more hours to support her family. Significantly this meant she was less present with her children than she would have liked whilst they were all dealing with the tragic loss. 

“They lost their daddy, but then they also lost out because I had to go out more to work” Siobhan said.

Recognising the injustice, Siobhan sought assistance to challenge the law as she was determined to ensure other bereaved families would not have the same experience. This ultimately resulted in a landmark decision in the Supreme Court which determined that restricting Widowed Parents Allowance to those who were married or in a civil partnership with the deceased breached the human rights of unmarried cohabiting parents and their children.1 

Following this Supreme Court case, the UK parliament eventually changed the law through the Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2023 which made bereavement benefits accessible for unmarried parents from 30 August 2018 onwards. As a result of Siobhan’s determination in taking the legal challenge, thousands of additional bereaved families have been able to access vital support when it is needed most. 

What is less well known is that, despite the acknowledged human rights breach, Siobhan and her family still did not receive bereavement benefits for the four-year period between John’s death in 2014 and the Supreme Court decision in 2018. 

Joanne’s story.

Joanne lived with her partner Paul Hunter for 20 years and they had two children together. When Paul died in 2014 Joanne made a claim for Widowed Parents Allowance but her claim was refused as she and Paul had never been married. Joanne reapplied for Widowed Parents Allowance in 2016 when she heard that Siobhan McLaughlin’s initial legal challenge had been successful in the NI High Court. Joanne’s claim was again refused and her appeal was effectively stayed awaiting the outcome of Siobhan McLaughlin’s legal challenge. When the Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2023 was applied from August 2018, Joanne received just 3 days of payment of Widowed Parent’s Allowance and, like Siobhan, missed out on significant payments for the four year period between Paul’s death in 2014 and the Supreme Court decision in 2018. 

In order to try to secure a settlement for the period prior to August 2018, Law Centre NI represented Joanne and another client who was granted anonymity (AD). In both client’s cases Law Centre NI argued, initially before tribunal, that our clients’ human rights had been breached and therefore the tribunal should allow their appeal. Both cases were referred directly to the Court of Appeal under Schedule 10 of the NI Act 1998. 

Parallel to these proceedings, Law Centre NI had assisted Siobhan McLaughlin apply to the European Court of Human Rights seeking remedy for her loss for the period between 2014-2018. The application was rejected pending the outcome of potential domestic proceedings. A damages claim was lodged in the County Court and this in turn awaited the outcome of Joanne Armstrong and AD’s ongoing cases in the Court of Appeal. 

During proceedings before the Court of Appeal the Department for Communities and the Department for Work and Pensions conceded that refusing to pay bereavement benefits to the co-habiting surviving parent in respect of the period prior to 30 August 2018, was incompatible with each Appellant’s human rights (Article 8 with Article 14 ECHR). In essence, during the court case, the government departments accepted that it was unlawful and discriminatory to refuse bereavement benefits to unmarried partners with children before 30 August 2018 because it breached their human rights. The Court decided not to provide a remedy. In doing so the Court of Appeal expressly took into account the fact that the Appellant had an alternative remedy of a claim for damages under s.8(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.  

Following this outcome, and further to Siobhan McLaughlin’s live claim, Law Centre NI issued a letter before claim on behalf of both Joanne Armstrong and AD arguing that it had been agreed by the parties that each claimant had suffered a human rights breach and that it was necessary to afford just satisfaction to our clients in these circumstances. This is what ultimately led to claims for damages. 

Acknowledgements.

Law Centre NI would like to acknowledge the casework support received from Public Interest Litigation Support (PILS) in relation to Siobhan McLaughlin’s case. We would also like to thank Counsel Karen Quinlivan KC and Aidan McGowan BL for their expertise across all of these cases.

References.

1. In the matter of an application by Siobhan McLaughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) The challenge was taken on the basis of Art 14 with Article 14 and Article 1 of the first protocol

Final Approved Judgment of the Court of Appeal   

Siobhan McLaughlin’s SC Judgment  

Bereavement Benefits Remedial Order