Women born in the 1950s might have to wait until the Autumn for a landmark decision on a court case brought by campaign group Backto60 over pensions.
More than 35,000 Gloucestershire women are hoping the appeal court judgement will bring them “ justice” after years of arguing they were cheated out of their pensions
But Joanne Welch, leader of the campaign group Backto60 which brought the court action, says lawyers don’t have any idea when they will get the reserved judgement
“No time span has been indicated,” she tweeted last night
And today she said: “We await the ruling, the timing is in the court’s hands.”
Asked what it would mean to for the: “It means a lifeline to 50s who have suffered cumulative damages and permanent loss of lifelong planned retirement.”
More than 35,000 women born in the 1950s will be impacted by the outcome of the decision which argues women of this era who expected to retire at 60 were discriminated against
Campaigners argue that successive changes to equalise the state pension age discriminated against them on the grounds of age and sex and women who suffered a lifetime of discrimination have now been left in dire straits financially, physically and mentally.
But there is no clear date for deciding the complicated legal case brought by Julie Delve, 62, and Karen Glynn, 63 against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The pair are hoping a decision in their favour will mean full restoration of pensions for all women of their age.
Another campaign group, Women Against State Pension Injustice (WASPI ), is using a different route and trying to negotiate transitional payments.
At the original High Court hearing last Autumn judges dismissed the women’s claim within minutes of the court being seated, leaving many campaigners who had come to London for the day shocked at the speed of the decision.
But the appeal was granted and is considered so important that The Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, sat with two other judges.
This decision is likely to take much longer but according to legal websites appeal court judges are expected to deliver a judgement within three months of a hearing by the latest.
If the judges stick to convention they will have to deliver a judgement by the end of October and will usually give it to both parties two days in advance so they can digest it.
This week Michael Mansfield QC told the Court of Appeal that the changes had had a catastrophic impact on a generation of women who had been forced to sell their homes and goods after being left in the lurch by the pension changes.
But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) lawyer James Eadie QC claimed women live longer than men and said pensions had to be economically viable.
He argued the hardship experienced by many women of this generation were due to social problems, rather than the state pension age.
If he loses the Government could be faced with a massive bill to reimburse up to 3.8 million women who have missed out but others say even if the judgement agrees the way the decision was handled was wrong, does not mean they will get all the money they have missed out on by the decision.