Abstract
This commentary examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Delve and Glynn) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which concerned the judicial review of the incremental increase of the state pension age in the United Kingdom for women born in the 1950s. It focuses on the claims of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the discussion relating to indirect sex/sex and age discrimination. It is argued that there is scope for greater clarity in the Court’s reasoning which led to its conclusion that the measures did not result in indirect discrimination contrary to Article 14. However, the dismissal of each appeal is not surprising, in view of the adoption of the ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’ test when scrutinising decisions relating to social welfare policy. In other words, even if the measures resulted in indirect sex discrimination, they were justified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.