DWP dragged to Supreme Court over refusing payments to a grieving husband

After a heart-wrenching five-year struggle, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is once again facing the Supreme Court over its refusal to provide bereavement support payments to a grieving husband. This ongoing legal battle spotlights the harsh realities faced by disabled people and their loved ones in the welfare system, which appears out of touch and unwilling to show compassion.

The DWP: fighting a grieving husband

Daniel Jwanczuk has been fighting tirelessly for justice after his wife Suzzi, who lived with severe disabilities her entire life, passed away. Suzzi’s disabilities prevented her from ever working, which led the DWP to reject Daniel’s claim for £4,300 in bereavement payments on the grounds that she had not met National Insurance contribution requirements.

The rules effectively penalise disabled people who cannot work, extending hardship to their bereaved families.

Daniel’s fight has already been won twice in court — with victories in the High Court and the Court of Appeal — exposing the injustice embedded in the system. Yet despite these rulings, the DWP has persisted in appealing, dragging Daniel through years of emotional and financial distress, all while refusing to acknowledge the unique challenges faced by disabled people and those who love them.

Daniel himself has been forced to rely on food parcels and seek help wherever possible during this agonising time, a demoralising experience that no grieving person should have to endure. He said:

She was the most kind-hearted, generous woman that I have ever met. I was on food parcels. I was down getting help from anyone that I could, which was extremely demoralising.

Daniel emphasises that his fight against the DWP is not about the money but the principle and sense of justice. He said:

From day one, it was more about the principle and the injustice than about the money. It has made my grief continue, with me feeling like I can’t mentally lay her to rest.

A disgraceful case that the department should not be fighting

His lawyers from the Public Law Project, including Matthew Court, have expressed frustration at the seemingly disproportionate nature of the DWP’s persistence. Court said:

We can speculate but I don’t know the reasons why. It does seem disproportionate, but they’re the only ones that can really answer why they’ve fought this so far.

Daniel’s case holds wider significance for disabled people who have been excluded from basic financial recognition in death simply because they could not meet the work requirements imposed by the DWP. He said:

I want all disabled people who were unable to work due to their severe disabilities to be recognised in death. Suzzi was a wonderful person who contributed much to my life and the lives of others. She and I shouldn’t be treated any differently just because she had medical conditions that meant she was unable to work throughout her life.

This case highlights the cruel reality for many disabled people and their families who are left behind by a welfare system fixated on contribution records rather than fairness or compassion.

The continued refusal of the DWP to concede despite losing twice shows an administration more interested in cutting costs and clinging to outdated rules than offering dignity and support to bereaved families.

The DWP: treating people appallingly in death, as in life

For Daniel, this is more than a legal battle — it is about finding closure and the ability to grieve properly after losing the person he loved most:

It has made my grief continue, with me feeling like I can’t mentally lay her to rest.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, thousands of disabled people and bereaved families will watch closely, hoping that justice will finally be served in a system that all too often fails those who need it most.

Featured image via the Canary