CH-2024-000162 - [2025] EWHC 2237 (Ch)

Taking all the above matters into consideration, I have come to the view that the proper construction of Rule 5.5 is a static one and that Mrs Alexis’ “State pension age” for that purpose was 65, not 66. Albeit largely based on legal arguments not aired before the Ombudsman, I therefore allow the appeal and set aside paragraph 50 of the Decision.

I appreciate that Mrs Alexis will be disappointed with this outcome. I can also well understand why she thought that she was entitled under the 2001 Rules to payment of the supplement until her actual state pension age. However, as unwelcome as my decision might be for her, I have come to the clear view, as a matter of the proper construction of Rule 5.5, that it did not extend to later legislative changes on account of increases in state pension age such that the supplement was only payable until Mrs Alexis reached 65.

In terms of consequential matters arising from my judgment, Richards J has, of course, already dealt with the question of costs in paragraph 2 of his order dated 14 November 2024 such that neither party may recover the costs of the appeal from the other. There was some suggestion by the Trustee that any overpayment of the supplement could be addressed by remitting the matter back to the Ombudsman. I was not convinced at the time that this course was open to me. That was my provisional view then. If the Trustee wishes to seek to persuade me otherwise, I will hear further from the parties about it and/ or on any other consequential matters which cannot be agreed and/ or may require my further input.