In December 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Ministry of Justice had discriminated against the judges on the grounds of age. It also upheld an indirect discrimination claim based on the affected group including a disproportionate number of female judges and judges from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds. The Court of Appeal also found in favour of a group of firefighters on the same issue.
The Supreme Court rejected the government's application to appeal the Court of Appeal's judgment in June 2019.
Pensions experts at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law, said that the issue was both a "generational and procedural one".
"The government's theory was that those closer to retirement had less chance to re-adjust, and therefore needed better protection from the original changes," said Nick Stones of Pinsent Masons. "The problem seemed to be that the government simply did not substantiate this 'hunch' and provided no evidence. In reality, it is the younger members who stand to lose the most from pension changes."
"You would not want to bet against similar issues arising in the private sector, but the key difference is the ability of the public sector to mobilise, and union backing to research and fund the litigation. And a short term windfall for employees may be a long-term loss: if the whole basis of the public sector pensions deal agreed in the early 2010s is ripped up, then the government could use this to justify a more radical look at public sector pensions reform and bring the public sector closer into alignment with their private sector compatriots," he said.