Mum-of-four was unlawfully denied widowed parent's allowance

In a verdict with potentially UK-wide implications, Mr Justice Treacy held that the denial unjustifiably discriminated against Siobhan McLaughlin.

He said: “The complete exclusion of the applicant on the grounds of her marital status from a benefit whose purpose is to alleviate the financial burden on a family resulting from the death of a parent cannot be justified.”

Ms McLaughlin brought a test case challenging decisions of the Department for Social Development refusing her both bereavement benefit and widowed parent’s allowance.

Her claims had been turned down because she was neither married nor in a civil partnership at the time of her partner’s death.

The couple lived together as man and wife for 23 years before he died in January 2014.

They had four children together, now aged between 11 and 19, and for whom she remains sole provider.

A key component of the family income comes from state benefits, the court heard.

However, she would have been entitled to the further allowances under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (NI) Act 1992 had she been married.

Her barristers, David McMillen QC and Lauras Graham, argued that the decision unlawfully discriminated against Ms McLaughlin due to her marital situation.

They also contended that it breached her private and family life entitlements under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Justice Treacy rejected her claim for bereavement payments, finding sufficient difference between the relationships of cohabiting couples and those who put the state on notice by entering into public contracts through marriage or civil partnerships.

However, he held there was no justification in being denied a benefit granted due to parentage and co-raising of children.

“The rationale for the benefit applied equally to persons in the applicant’s position as it does to married widows with children,” he said.

“The purpose of the benefit was to diminish the financial hardship on families consequent upon the death of one of the parents.”

According to the judge the exclusion appears “inimical” to the interests of children.

He confirmed: “I hold that the impugned restriction is a violation of Article 8 when read with Article 14 of the Convention, in that it unjustifiably discriminates against the applicant on the grounds of her marital status.”