In the recent case in the Royal Courts of Justice concerning pension age equalisation, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple handed down a judgement that stated:

"The court was saddened by the stories contained in the claimants' evidence.

But, the court's role was limited. There was no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in the legislation were not open to government. In any event they were approved by Parliament.

The wider issues raised by the claimants about whether the choices were right or wrong or good or bad were not for the court. They were for members of the public and their elected representatives."

The court had been hearing the case of two claimants - Julie Delve and Karen Glynn - who had taken the Department for Work and Pensions to court for discrimination on the grounds of age and/or sex and also stating that the government failed to inform them of the changes due to the increase in women’s pension age.

Women who were born in the 1950s claim that the rise is unfair as they were not given sufficient time to make adjustments to cope with the years without a state pension. This is due to the rise of entitlement from 60 years to 65 years - in line with men - and will further rise to 66 years by 2020 and 67 years by 2028.

The arguments put forward by the claimants were that the changes offended the EU law principle of non-discrimination, but this was rejected by the court who held that the legislation under challenge was not within the scope of EU law.  It also rejected the argument that the European Convention of Human Rights had been breached - as case law maintains that a new legislative scheme which effects changes from a given date based on age can be introduced.

With regard to the argument of sex discrimination, the court ruled that ‘there was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law, rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.’

When handed down, the judgment drew gasps from the public gallery and later - on the court steps - the group Women Against State Pension Inequality chanted ‘shame on you’.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said:

"We welcome the High Court's judgment. It has always been our view that the changes we made to women's state pension age were entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds."