There was an unusual procedure in the courts in the long battle between the Department of Work and Pensions and WASPI last week.

The issue was whether WASPI’s legal costs would be capped in their application for a judicial review over the government’s decision not to award compensation for partial maladministration for 50s women who faced a six year delay in getting their pensions. It led to some pretty strong exchanges between Bindman’s solicitors and DWP lawyers, the latter were vehemently opposed to the cost cap, arguing it was not a public interest issue.

Instead of a hearing last Monday to decide the issue – it was suddenly ” vacated” by the parties concerned and a very senior judge in charge of the administrative court decided to grant the cost capping for WASPI in advance when they bring a case to the courts for permission to have a judicial review. CEDAWinLAW applied to be a friend of the court and submitted documents on the substantive issue on discrimination and maladministration.

CEDAWinLAW said: “As friends to the court, CEDAWinLAW’s Amicus Curaie Intervention and Cost Capping Order applications matter to 3.5million 1950s Women whom we uniquely represent: Thus followed, the submission of our legal documents out of relevant expertise and strong interest in the outcome of Case No AC-2025-LON-000811.

Our purpose is to assist the court by offering impartial information, legal arguments and broader public interest perspectives that are not fully represented by the parties in the case.”

They have had no reply from the court. They have put in a complaint and also written to the judge.

What is extraordinary is the CV of this senior judge. Mr Justice Swift who took the decision shows he is no friend of campaigners and has taken a consistently pro government stance over the years.

A large part of his career was spent as the First Treasury Counsel – known as the Treasury Devil – from 2007 to 2014. The current one is James Eadie who played a prominent and a successful role in defending the government in the judicial review against Backto60 , who fought the Department for Work and Pensions. to claim compensation for 3.5 million 50swomen lost pensions on the grounds of discrimination and maladministration. Their case was never looked at by the Supreme Court who claimed it was ” out of time”.

The whole point of the post is to defend the government from NOT paying out people who sought compensation or redress from government departments, hence him taking the prime role for the DWP. The Treasury is never keen to spend too much money.

More recently he took two the Government’s side on two high profile cases – the deportation of refugees to Rwanda – and the fate of Julian Assange, who is now a freeman. As Wikipedia said:

On 10 June 2022, Mr Justice Swift ruled in favour of the UK Government that the deportation flights of unsuccessful asylum seekers in the UK to Rwanda should be allowed to proceed, as there was material public interest in doing so.^[5] He added in his ruling that the risk posed to refugees was “in the realms of speculation”.^[6]

On 8 June 2023, Swift ruled in favour of the UK Government, and rejected the appeal of political prisoner Julian Assange‘s legal team, which had filed two appeals before the court against the then Home Secretary Priti Patel‘s decision to extradite Wikileaks founder being indicted by the United States under the Espionage Act. He was later released.

So while WASPI did have a friend at the head of the administrative court it is by no means certain that they will get an easy ride when it comes to getting permission for a judicial review which will require a public hearing. If he had refused the organisation would have been set back as the department could try to get all its costs against them if it won.

In the end the ruling means that the case is being regraded in the “public interest” much as the case for a judicial review the Backto60 case was regarded as a public interest case.

What is staring everyone in the face is why not go for mediation rather than have a long drawn out judicial review which could take years if there are appeals and still needs judicial permission to go ahead.

WASPI set its face against this and not only refused but actively opposed CEDAWinLAW’s attempt to do this through the courts, siding with the DWP’s opposition to this.

Looking at the present situation Angela Madden, who runs the WASPI campaign, appears to be accepting, unlike her bold claims of getting £10,000 for everybody at the Labour Party Conference a few years ago, a token payment so the government acknowledge the maladministration found in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report. She in her last message suggested she was not looking for compensation for lost pensions but for the government to accept it needed to pay the women after the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report.

Yet her members have already raised over £227,000 for a legal case and the organisation wants another £43,000 for what they admit will be a complex hearing. At this rate the legal costs may exceed the award.

In the meantime CEDAWinLAW is applying for observer status in the proceedings.