RPI/CPI Judgement
On 2 December 2011 the High Court issued its judgement (and a summary) in the case of the challenge to the Government's decision to change the basis for uprating public service pensions from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to Consumer Prices Index (CPI). The High Court found for the Government.
There were three judges (Lord Justice Elias, Justice McCombe and Justice Sales) presiding over the review. The claimants submitted four grounds on which they wished to challenge the decision to switch from RPI to CPI.
- CPI is not a proper measure of inflation within the meaning of the Social Security Administration Act 1992;
- the Government went outside the statutory purpose of the review of benefits against prices because the principal reason for the decision was the very substantial savings it anticipated if the change was made;
- the change infringed the "legitimate expectations" of the claimants in legal terms that the use of RPI for uprating purposes would be the norm and, further, the government did not take into account that such expectations were being infringed by the decision it made; and
- in making the change, the Government broke its duty under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended) to "have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity between men and women".
All 3 judges agreed that submissions (1), (3) and (4) should fail. There was a majority verdict on submission (2) with Justice McCombe giving a dissenting opinion. He agreed with the claimants' QC that the requirement to reduce the deficit was the dominant driver behind the switch from RPI to CPI. In the words of the QC the Government's justification for the switch "put the economic cart before the statutory horse".
The Secretariat understands that the NASUWT is to appeal the High Court decision.
Wiltshire Pensions Fund, County Hall,Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN.
© 2007 Wiltshire Pension Fund.