Bindmans Leads Fresh Judicial Review Challenge Against Government's Refusal to Compensate WASPI Women Over State Pension Failures
Bindmans, the London public law firm, is leading a new judicial review against the government over its refusal to offer compensation to women affected by failures in state pension notification — the group represented by campaign organisation WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality). The WASPI dispute centres on women born in the 1950s who were not given adequate notice of the increase in the state pension age from 60 to 65, leaving many without sufficient time to make alternative financial arrangements. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman previously found that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had committed maladministration in its communications, but the government declined to implement the recommended compensation scheme. The judicial review route — a legal challenge in the Administrative Court asking a judge to review the lawfulness of a public body's decision — is being used here to contest the government's refusal to act on the Ombudsman's findings. This is a constitutionally significant mechanism: it directly tests the extent to which ministers are legally obliged to follow Ombudsman recommendations, a question that has broader implications for the accountability of public bodies.
Why this matters
This judicial review raises a genuinely novel constitutional question: can a government lawfully decline to implement a Parliamentary Ombudsman's compensation recommendation without itself being found to have acted unlawfully? The outcome will affect not just the WASPI claimants — potentially numbering in the hundreds of thousands — but the broader relationship between Ombudsman decisions and ministerial discretion. Public law and administrative practices at firms with government-side and claimant-side capabilities will both be watching closely. If the challenge succeeds, the scale of potential DWP compensation liability would be substantial and would likely require primary or secondary legislation to implement.
On the Ground
On a judicial review of this type, a trainee would assist with the preparation of the claim bundle — collating the relevant public body decisions, correspondence, and Ombudsman reports into a paginated trial bundle. They would also assist with chronology preparation (setting out the sequence of events in the pension notification failure and subsequent government response) and conduct disclosure review to identify documents relevant to the lawfulness of the government's decision.
Interview prep
Soundbite
A judicial review testing whether ministers must follow Ombudsman recommendations could redraw the constitutional boundaries of public body accountability in the UK.
Question you might get
“What are the legal grounds on which a court could find that a government minister acted unlawfully in refusing to follow a Parliamentary Ombudsman's recommendation, and what remedies would be available?”
Full answer
Bindmans is leading a judicial review challenging the government's refusal to compensate WASPI women, following the Parliamentary Ombudsman's finding of DWP maladministration in pension age notification. The legal question at stake is whether the government acted unlawfully in declining to implement the Ombudsman's compensation recommendation — a question without a settled answer in English public law. If the court finds in the claimants' favour, the precedent would significantly strengthen Ombudsman findings as a form of binding accountability, with implications well beyond pensions. The potential claimant class is enormous, meaning successful litigation could trigger a compensation scheme requiring legislative action — making this one of the highest-stakes public law disputes currently before the Administrative Court.
My notes
saved