Some of the judges in the Carson case provided positive comments. For example:
Justice Burnton in the very first hearing: “Very many of the expatriate UK pensioners who do not receive uprated pensions have a strong and understandable sense of grievance……They feel that they have been deprived of an increasingly substantial part of the fruit of their contributions……as a result, they have formed associations to press their cause for equal treatment”.
During the course of the first appeal, Lord Justice Laws conceded that the current situation was “haphazard”, quoting the UK Minister of State Jeff Rooker who, on 13 November 2000, said: “I have already said I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern. It does not matter whether it is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the situation has existed for years”.
During the House of Lords Appeal, the dissenting judge was Lord Cardwell, who had this to say: “A broader approach might more readily yield a serviceable answer which corresponds with one’s instincts During the House of Lords Appeal, the dissenting judge was Lord Cardwell, who had this to say: “A broader approach might more readily yield a serviceable answer which corresponds with one’s instincts for justice. Once the UK Government started uprating the UK state pension for some pensioners living abroad, then there can be no justification for paying some and not others and less than their peers in the UK”. Lord Carswell therefore allowed the appeal and declared that regulation 3 of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/910) is unlawful”. justice. Once the UK Government started uprating the UK state pension for some pensioners living abroad, then there can be no justification for paying some and not others and less than their peers in the UK”. Lord Carswell therefore allowed the appeal and declared that regulation 3 of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/910) is unlawful”.
Whilst Carson and the 12 Applicants lost their first case in the ECHR, the President of the Court, Lech Garlicki was the dissenting view:“Considerations of social justice and equity require that persons who have duly contributed towards the pensions of others should not be treated differently in the subsequent calculations of their own pension“.
In the Grand Chamber hearing, the Grand Chamber determined that frozen pensioners could not claim discrimination compared with those in unfrozen countries because they are not in a relevantly similar position. The latter group are treated differently because an agreement has been entered into, which the UK considers to be in its best interest. whilst Carson and the 12 other Applicants lost 6-3, the dissenting opinion was: “that Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1 had been violated, and that Article 14 on its own had also been violated. All of the Applicants were in the same boat even though their countries of residence may be different. The majority approach regarding “residence” seemed self contradictory, and inconsistent with the spirit of Article 14…….given the characteristics shared by both groups of contributors to the pension system, no relevant differences can be found to justify such a radical and unfavourable difference in their treatment, and the Government do not provide convincing reasons in this regard. The fact of residing in another country cannot be considered sufficient justification”.
`
