The government’s recent submission in response to the Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality) group’s judicial review has stirred both legal and public debate. The core of the government’s argument is that the Waspi group’s claims are not “properly arguable,” dismissing the grounds as methodological disagreements rather than substantive legal challenges.
Waspi has brought two main arguments: first, that the government’s rejection of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) findings on injustice lacked cogent or rational reasoning; and second, that its dismissal of the PHSO’s recommended remedies was similarly flawed.
In defending its position, the government emphasises its legal right to depart from the PHSO’s conclusions, provided there are strong reasons. It cites evidence, notably a 2014 survey on communications and a 2006 survey on public awareness of state pension age (SPA) changes, arguing these were pivotal pieces of information the PHSO failed to fully consider. The government maintains that its interpretation of these surveys justifies its departure from the Ombudsman’s stance—framing its decisions as rational and within legal bounds.
From a fairness perspective, however, the issue extends beyond the technicalities of legal defensibility. At the heart of the Waspi campaign lies a moral argument: whether women born in the 1950s were adequately informed and fairly treated as their state pension age was raised. The government’s insistence that affected individuals had a personal responsibility to seek out and understand the impact of policy changes raises deeper questions about the balance of responsibility between state and citizen.
While the government has presented a reasoned defence rooted in procedure and evidence interpretation, fairness demands more than technical compliance. It requires an examination of whether the processes and outcomes truly protected the vulnerable and met the standards of equity expected in a just society.
The Waspi group’s reaction—predicting the government’s stance and reaffirming confidence in their case—highlights the continued disconnect between procedural defences and public perceptions of justice. As this case progresses, it will test not only the legal arguments but also the government’s commitment to principles of fairness that go beyond the letter of the law.
The coming judicial review will be pivotal in determining whether the government’s rationale holds under deeper scrutiny—and whether fairness, in its fullest sense, has been served.
Your Money or Your Life
Unmask the highway robbers – Enjoy wealth in every area of your life!
By Steve Conley. Available on Amazon. Visit www.steve.conley.co.uk to find out more.
Academy of Life Planning 
📢 Update – 6 June 2025
The High Court has now granted the Waspi campaign group permission for a full hearing. The judge ruled that the case is “arguable and ought to be considered at a final hearing.” ⚖️👏
An interim hearing will also take place to decide whether to grant a cost capping order — potentially limiting the government’s ability to recover costs if the claim is unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Waspi has surpassed its initial crowdfunding goal (£192,361 raised so far) and is now aiming for a stretch target of £230,000 to support the next legal stage.
The battle for justice continues — and now, the courts will hear it in full. 🙌👩⚖️