The court reviewed the three United Kingdom hearings brought by Carson:
a).
Administration Court of the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice before the Honorable Mr. Justice Burnton - 2002.
paras.
24-28
b).
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in the Supreme Court before Lord Justice Brown, Lord Justice Laws, and Lord Justice Rix - 2003.
paras.
29-31
c).
Appellate Committee of the House of Lords before Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell - 2005.
paras.
32-36
The Court stated Lord Carswell's dissenting opinion:
"How persons spend their income and where they do so are matters for their own choice.
Some may choose to live in a country where the cost of living is low or the exchange rate favorable, a course not uncommon in previous generations, which may or may not carry with it disadvantages, but that is a matter for their personal choice.
The common factor for purposes of comparison is that all of the pensioners, in whichever country they may reside, have duly paid the contributions required to qualify for their pensions.
If some of them are not paid pensions at the same rate as others, that in my opinion constitutes discrimination for the purposes of Article 14 ...”.

The UK state retirement pension is a contributory benefit paid when a UK pensioner retired based on the number of social security contributing years.
ᵖᵃʳᵃ ³⁷ The system in the UK allows for annual increases to the UK state pension based on the inflation rate in the UK.
ᵖᵃʳᵃ ³⁸ All pensioners living in the UK receive this increase as well as UK pensioners resident in certain other countries.
paras 39,40
Each year, via secondary legislation known as Statutory Instruments, legislation is passed in the UK that sets out in Regulation 5 who should be restricted from receiving the annual increase to the UK state pension:
"Regulation 5 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975(7) (application of disqualification in respect of up-rating of benefit) shall apply to any additional benefit payable by virtue of the Up-rating Order."
paras 41, 42.

Those UK pensioners living in the European Union or a country with whom the UK has negotiated a social security reciprocal agreement will also receive the same increase as those pensioners living in the UK ᵖᵃʳᵃˢ ⁴³⁻⁴⁵. However, according to the Third Report (January 1997) of the House of Commons Social Security Committee the existence of a bilateral agreement is not necessary for the annual uprating to be paid since this is regulated purely by domestic legislation.
Uprating is not applied to pensioners living in those countries that do not have these bilateral agreements in place.
ᵖᵃʳᵃ ⁴⁶ The report also states:
"It is impossible to discern any pattern behind the selection of countries with whom bilateral agreements have been made providing for up-rating".
ᵖᵃʳᵃ ⁴⁷,
and Minister of State (Jeff Rooker), on 13 November 2000, in a statement to the House of Commons 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 a country 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" ᵖᵃʳᵃ ⁴⁷
The Court determined that international law provisions support the UK Government's decisions to exclude a person's right to a benefit:
"as long as the person concerned is absent from the territory of the Contracting Party concerned".
paras 48,49
Many countries only pay benefits to those residing in that country.
The UK is unique in paying the benefit to some expatriates whilst excluding others, purely based on country of residence.
ᵖᵃʳᵃ ⁵⁰.
Witness statements have been submitted by Australian civil servants (British pensioners living in Australia do not receive the annual increase) highlighting the impact on the 220,000 UK pensioners living there w
The court reviewed the three United Kingdom hearings brought by Carson:
a). Administration Court of the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice before the Honorable Mr. Justice Burnton - 2002. paras. 24-28
b). Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in the Supreme Court before Lord Justice Brown, Lord Justice Laws, and Lord Justice Rix - 2003. paras. 29-31
c). Appellate Committee of the House of Lords before Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell - 2005. paras. 32-36
The Court stated Lord Carswell's dissenting opinion:
"How persons spend their income and where they do so are matters for their own choice. Some may choose to live in a country where the cost of living is low or the exchange rate favorable, a course not uncommon in previous generations, which may or may not carry with it disadvantages, but that is a matter for their personal choice. The common factor for purposes of comparison is that all of the pensioners, in whichever country they may reside, have duly paid the contributions required to qualify for their pensions. If some of them are not paid pensions at the same rate as others, that in my opinion constitutes discrimination for the purposes of Article 14 ...”.
The UK state retirement pension is a contributory benefit paid when a UK pensioner retired based on the number of social security contributing years. ᵖᵃʳᵃ ³⁷ The system in the UK allows for annual increases to the UK state pension based on the inflation rate in the UK. ᵖᵃʳᵃ ³⁸ All pensioners living in the UK receive this increase as well as UK pensioners resident in certain other countries. paras 39,40
Each year, via secondary legislation known as Statutory Instruments, legislation is passed in the UK that sets out in Regulation 5 who should be restricted from receiving the annual increase to the UK state pension:
"Regulation 5 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975(7) (application of disqualification in respect of up-rating of benefit) shall apply to any additional benefit payable by virtue of the Up-rating Order." paras 41, 42.
Those UK pensioners living in the European Union or a country with whom the UK has negotiated a social security reciprocal agreement will also receive the same increase as those pensioners living in the UK ᵖᵃʳᵃˢ ⁴³⁻⁴⁵. However, according to the Third Report (January 1997) of the House of Commons Social Security Committee the existence of a bilateral agreement is not necessary for the annual uprating to be paid since this is regulated purely by domestic legislation. Uprating is not applied to pensioners living in those countries that do not have these bilateral agreements in place. ᵖᵃʳᵃ ⁴⁶ The report also states:
"It is impossible to discern any pattern behind the selection of countries with whom bilateral agreements have been made providing for up-rating". ᵖᵃʳᵃ ⁴⁷,
and Minister of State (Jeff Rooker), on 13 November 2000, in a statement to the House of Commons 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 a country 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" ᵖᵃʳᵃ ⁴⁷
The Court determined that international law provisions support the UK Government's decisions to exclude a person's right to a benefit:
"as long as the person concerned is absent from the territory of the Contracting Party concerned". paras 48,49
Many countries only pay benefits to those residing in that country. The UK is unique in paying the benefit to some expatriates whilst excluding others, purely based on country of residence. ᵖᵃʳᵃ ⁵⁰.
Witness statements have been submitted by Australian civil servants (British pensioners living in Australia do not receive the annual increase) highlighting the impact on the 220,000 UK pensioners living there w
Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom (Application No. 42184/05) – Fourth Section