High Court rules that equalising pension ages did not prejudice women

9 October 2019 by

Delve & Anor, R (On the Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] EWHC 2552 (Admin)read judgment

In a judgment handed down on 3rd October, the High Court has ruled that successive statutes between 1995 and 2014, which legislated to equalise the state pension age between men and women were not discriminatory. The High Court also determined that it was not a matter for the courts to conclude whether the steps taken to inform those affected by the changes in the state pension age for women were inadequate or unreasonable.


The origins of this claim rest in the Old Age and Widows’ Pension Act 1940, where the state pension age for women was lowered from 65 to 60 in response to a campaign by unmarried women in the 1930s. The policy created a relative disadvantage to men, justified by the social conditions at the time.

The Pensions Act 1995 was enacted to equalise the age discrepancy and the methodology followed in subsequent legislation was to stagger the advancement of the pension age by reference to age cohorts. The first change to women’s state pension age contained in the 1995 Act would take effect in 2010, 15 years later.

The reasoning behind the Act was four-fold: first, women were increasingly playing an equal role to men in the economy; second, people were living longer and healthier lives; third, there was an international trend to increase pension ages; and, fourth, occupational pension schemes had started to equalise the normal pension age at 65. Subsequent legislation in 2007, 2011 and 2014 accelerated this process and increased the normal retirement age, with the focus of the reasoning behind the legislation being the reduction of the ‘dependency ratio,’ (the ratio between the working population and the population in receipt of old age pensions).

Issues before the Court

The Claimants’ case was that whilst the legislation had intended to equalise the position of men and women, the effect had been to exacerbate pre-existing inequalities, particularly for the Claimants’ generation (born in the 1950s), who were subject to more limited work expectations. The Claimants also asserted that they had received inadequate notice of these changes.

The claim therefore formed three distinct grounds:

  1. Age discrimination
  2. Sex discrimination
  3. The Notice Provisions

1. Age Discrimination

The Claimants advanced arguments under EU Law and under the Convention:

EU Law

The High Court accepted the Claimants’ submission that there is a general EU principle of non-discrimination, but held that the principle was limited in its application since the relevant national rule must fall within the scope of EU law: the receipt of a state pension did not constitute pay within the meaning of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) Article 157(2), being neither a wage or a salary, and so the equal pay obligation in Article 157(1) had no application. Similarly, although the Equality Directive prohibits discrimination based on age, it specifically excludes social security and social protection schemes.

European Convention

It was accepted that the state pension was a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1, of Protocol 1 (the protection of property) to the European Convention of Human Rights. The Claimants then sought to argue that the UK had discriminated unlawfully contrary to Article 14 and that legislation was manifestly without reasonable foundation. The Court rejected this argument; since case law (Ackerman at 7, Zammit at 70 and Minter at 67) showed that if a State can change the law at a single point in time, then it must also be able to effect the change by a series of changes at different points in time. Although the High Court considered that the question of justification did no arise, it in any event rejected the submission that the legislation was manifestly without reasonable foundation, where the underlying objective was to ensure that the state pension regime remained affordable whilst striking an appropriate balance between state pension age and the size of the state pension.

2. Sex Discrimination

The Claimant raised arguments under EU Law and under the Convention:

EU Law

The Claimants submission relied on Article 4 of the Social Security Directive which prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex. They said that although Article 7 contained a derogation for determining pensionable age, this only applied to discrimination by maintaining unequal state pension ages and not discrimination caused by equalising the state pension age. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Article 7 was not so limited in its application.

European Convention

Again, the Claimants relied on Article 1, Protocol 1 read with Article 14. The Court was not convinced by the allegation of direct discrimination when the legislation served “to equalise a historic asymmetry between men and women”. The more pressing issue was whether the legislation indirectly discriminated against women by removing the “historic asymmetry”.

The Court’s reasoning was as follows: first, a measure can only be indirectly discriminatory if it applies indiscriminately to all, and here it only applied only to women; second, the disadvantages pre-existed the change in the state pension age, and did not cause or exacerbate them; and, third the legislation would in any event be justified as it contained a legitimate foundation and purpose.

3. Notice Provisions

The Claimants’ final submission was that inadequate and ineffective notice was given to them about the changes to the state pension age and that they had a legitimate expectation that the Defendant would provide sufficient notice. The Court held that there was never a prior promise or representation made by Parliament and that successive governments had engaged in a wide consultation process. Therefore, even if the court were able to impose obligations of notice giving proceeding from common law fairness, no breach could commit or empower the court to suspend the operation of primary legislation.


The extensive media coverage of the decision has focused on the stories of those affected by the changes to the state pension age and one cannot help but feel sympathy for Mrs Delve and the other Claimants. However, the High Court has reached a sensible decision in this judgment, as the EU Directive has a clear aim of achieving progressive implementation of the equal treatment for men and women. It would be odd if legislation which eliminated discrimination was itself held to be discriminatory.

No doubt the DWP will be heaving a sigh of relief on receiving this judgment, as “the government has estimated that a reversal of the pension changes in the Acts of Parliament of 1995 and 2011 would cost £215bn over the period 2010-11 to 2025-26.”

1 comment;

  1. Diana Smith says:

    l still feel it is discrimination as women provide care for grandchildren and relatives and the sheer cost of being made to for ultimately what comes free through family circles, is more poverty placed on families , that social care cannot cope with. This is blinkered thinking by the courts which again is majority made decisions by men or privileged women , which no knowledge of forced poverty

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: