A TRANSSEXUAL who was born a boy has won her fight to be paid a state pension from the women’s retirement age of 60, rather than the men’s retirement age of 65.

Europe’s supreme court ruled that the Government’s refusal to pay Sarah Richards a pension when she turned 60 was illegal under EU equality laws. Ms Richards, who was born in 1942 and later had gender dysphoria diagnosed, underwent sex-change surgery in 2001 and shortly afterwards claimed a state pension.

The Department for Work and Pensions refused to pay on the ground that she was still officially a man, and that she was not yet 65.

Officials refused the request because, under British law at the time, a person’s birth certificate could be changed only to correct a factual or clerical error, and could not be altered to reflect a sex change. For social security purposes, the gender of a person is that stated on the birth certificate, so Ms Richards remained a man in the eyes of the pension system.

However, the European Court of Justice ruled that the decision fell foul of an EU directive banning sex discrimination. The directive has a special derogation allowing governments to apply different retirement ages to men and women — so as not to destabilise long-term pension arrangements.

The court ruled that Ms Richards should be treated as a woman and that she was being discriminated against on the ground of her sex change.

The judges concluded: “As it arises from her gender reassignment, the unequal treatment to which Ms Richards was subject must be regarded as discrimination, which is prohibited [by EU law].”

The ruling is backdated, meaning that Ms Richards will now have the right to a lump sum payment for several years’ pension. However, it does not affect British law, as the Gender Recognition Act, which came into force in 2005, allows for the use of “gender recognition certificates” that recognise sex changes for most legal purposes, but is not retroactive.

The new ruling will apply to all female transsexuals who applied for and were denied a pension at 60 before 2005. The Government said that it did not know how many people would be affected.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones