Supreme Court hands down judgment in Simkova v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] UKSC 41

The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in Simkova, an important and complex case about whether the child element of Universal Credit (“UC”) is subject to the EU social security co-ordination legislation, namely Regulation EC (No) 883/2004 (“883/2004”). At the material time, Ms Simkova was a Slovakian citizen resident in England with a son who lived with his grandparents in Slovakia. She argued that the child element of UC should be treated as a family benefit in its own right, thus co-ordinated by that legislation and entitling her to claim the child element in respect of her son, despite him living in Slovakia. She had no such entitlement under domestic legislation.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, accepting the Secretary of State’s submission that the child element of UC did not fall to be treated as a family benefit regulated by 883/2004. Rather, it was “deeply integrated into a generalised, composite benefits scheme and it is UC which constitutes the benefit …” [46]. The Supreme Court declined to make a reference to the CJEU because it considered this to be clear. It did not, therefore, determine a discrete question whether there was any power to refer pursuant to Article 158 of the Withdrawal Agreement, in circumstances where the decision under appeal had been made in October 2019 and the case had been commenced before the end of the transition period.

Julia Smyth KC and Barney McCay represented the Secretary of State, instructed by the Government Legal Department, with the involvement of First Treasury Counsel at the written case stage.

Tim Buley KC and Matthew Fraser, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, represented The Aire Centre.