Women affected by controversial changes to the state pension age have lost their landmark High Court fight against the Government.

There were gasps from the public gallery as Lord Justices revealed that the case had been dismissed inside a packed courtroom in London today.

The ruling means nearly four million British women born in the 1950s cannot claim compensation after the retirement age was raised from 60 to 66.

It was met by protests outside the court, with campaigners chanting 'shame on you'

The age has been increased by successive governments in an attempt to ensure 'pension age equalisation', so that women's state pension age matched that of men.

Two claimants - Julie Delve, 61, and Karen Glynn, 63 - had taken the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court, arguing that raising their pension age 'unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined'.

Upset campaigners are pictured outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London today after a ruling went against them over the state pension age for women

Campaigners share a hug after Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple deemed that the changes to the state pension age were lawful on Wednesday morning

The pair, supported by campaign group Backto60, also claimed they were not given adequate notice in order to be able to adjust to the changes.

But Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple deemed that the changes were lawful on Wednesday morning.

In a summary of the court's decision, they said: 'The court was saddened by the stories contained in the claimants' evidence. But the court's role was limited.

'There was no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in the legislation were not open to government. In any event they were approved by Parliament.

'The wider issues raised by the claimants about whether the choices were right or wrong or good or bad were not for the court.

'They were for members of the public and their elected representatives.'

They added in their ruling that the case brought by the so-called 'WASPI women', Women Against State Pension Inequality', was based on an inaccuracy.

The judges stated that in their case, the campaigners had claimed that the government had made a promise not to hike up the age with proper consultation.

In their ruling, the justices said: 'No such promise or representation was ever made.

'In addition, it is clear that successive governments engaged in extensive consultation with a wide spread of interested bodies before the successive Pensions Acts were brought before Parliament.'

Campaigners pictured outside the High Court in London today, where judges ruled that controversial changes to the state pension age had been lawful

Today's ruling means nearly four million British women born in the 1950s cannot claim compensation after the retirement age was raised from 60 to 66

The ruling comes as a blow to women who were supported by the Backto60 campaign group.

Represented by Michael Mansfield, QC, the campaigners claimed that the Department for Work and Pensions had discriminated against them on the grounds of both age and sex.

But the judges accepted that the new pension laws did not include a provision to notify the affected women: 'Parliament could have included obligations of notice to the individuals affected by these successive changes but did not do so.'

The ruling also makes it clear that judges cannot strike down laws that have been passed by Parliament, even if the new laws break long established principles in law such as fairness.

'Even if the court were able to impose obligations of notice giving proceeding from common law fairness, no breach could commit or empower the court to suspend the operation of primary legislation.'

The judges also expressed sympathy for women who have been affected by having their pensions stripped from them.

There were gasps from the public gallery as Lord Justices revealed that the case had been dismissed inside a packed courtroom in London today

Campaigners claimed that the Department for Work and Pensions had discriminated against them on the grounds of both age and sex

'We are saddened by the stories we read in the evidence lodged by the Claimants. But our role as judges in this case is limited,' they explained.

The campaign group Backto60 have shared a number of stories of older women who are suffering because of the changes.

Anne, from Stockport, said: 'I always thought I would retire in 2014 when I reached 60 and my husband would be 66 then we could do things together and help our kids look after their children so they could work.

'I feel we have all been robbed and no one cares!'

Shirley, 64, from Weston Super Mare said: 'I am 64 years of age and was made redundant three years ago after nearly 20 yrs with the same company, which thought I had my state pension so I would be OK!

'I went through hell at the Job centre. I had numerous interviews but employers wanted younger people.

'I can't face the JobCentre and I can't face working either as I was bullied and mocked at my last job. My small private pension is now my only income.'

Women lose their landmark case against state pension age rises: What were they fighting for and what is next for those suffering hardship?

By Tanya Jefferies for Thisismoney.co.uk

Women whose state pension age was raised to 66 have lost a landmark case against the Government at the High Court.

Millions of women born in the 1950s have taken a financial hit as a result of delays to when they can start drawing the state pension, which is currently £168.60 a week.

For some women this saw their state pension age jump from 60 to 66 at relatively short notice.

But after a judicial review of the Government's decision, a case brought by Julie Delve and Karen Glynn with campaign group BackTo60 was dismissed.

We explain what has happened to women's state pension age (and how it is rising for men too), the issues raised by the case, and what happens now.

Demonstration: Anne Taylor (left) and Patsy Franklin from the BackTo60 campaign outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London, at the start of the legal case

What changes are under way to women's and men's state pension age - and why is it controversial?

Both men and women's state pension ages are currently in the process of increasing to 66. And between 2026 and 2028, they will both rise again to 67.

The next rise to 68 will happen between 2037 and 2039, after the Government accepted the recommendation of ex-Confederation of British Industry boss John Cridland, who carried out an official review of future state pension age increases.

The changes to the state pension age are aimed at bringing women's state pension age into line with men's, and taking account of everyone living longer.

But the rise in women's state pension age became contentious because in 2011 Chancellor George Osborne brought forward the timing of changes, initially for women alone and then also for both genders.

This hit women particularly hard because their increases happen both sooner than expected and in quick succession. Some 2.6million women got just five years' notice of an extension to their pension age.

This left them either forced to either work much longer than expected or to retire with no state pension for that period and with not enough time to build up savings that could bridge the gap.

What is the campaign about?

The Women Against State Pension Inequality - or WASPI - campaign says it agrees with equalising women's and men's pension ages, but not the 'unfair' way the changes are being implemented and the lack of communication to women about changes which would have a major - and in some cases devastating - impact on their future finances.

The judicial review was the result of efforts by a different women's campaign group, BackTo60.

Two claimants argued that raising their pension age discriminated against them on the grounds of their age and their sex, and that they were not properly informed of the changes in time to adjust.

What did the judges say today?

Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple dismissed the claim against the Government decision to raise women's state pension age, saying: 'The court was saddened by the stories contained in the claimants' evidence.

'But the court's role was limited. There was no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in the legislation were not open to Government. In any event they were approved by Parliament.

'The wider issues raised by the claimants about whether the choices were right or wrong or good or bad were not for the court. They were for members of the public and their elected representatives.'

Two claimants - Julie Delve, 61, and Karen Glynn, 63 - took the Department for Work and Pensions to court, arguing that raising their pension age 'unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined'.

The pair, supported by Backto60, also claimed they were not given adequate notice in order to be able to adjust to the changes.

But the judges said: 'There was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law.

'Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.'

The court also rejected the claimants' argument that the policy was discriminatory based on age, adding that even if it was 'it could be justified on the facts'.

What will happen now to women?

Thousands of complaints about the Government's decision in 2011 to hasten the age hikes for women, and failures to notify them over the years, have been piling up at its door - but these were on hold until after the judicial review.

Women have lodged formal protests about maladministration in the way changes to the state pension age were made

Making a complaint is a convoluted process that involves writing first to the Department for Work and Pensions, then the Independent Case Examiner’s Office, and finally to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The WASPI campaign has a guide to doing this here.

The group said the High Court could not make a judgement on maladministration because that is the role of the PHSO.

It expects that there will be a period of consideration from the DWP and the PHSO about how to proceed.

What does the Government say?

In a statement ahead of the judicial review, a DWP spokesman said: 'The Government decided more than 20 years ago that it was going to make the state pension age the same for men and women as a long-overdue move towards gender equality, and this has been clearly communicated.

'We need to raise the age at which all of us can draw a state pension so it is sustainable now and for future generations.'

When can I get my state pension?

The state pension age rises that are due to step up over the next decades mean that workers will be able to retire at different ages dependent upon when they were born. The closer they are to retirement, the less likely the current projections will change dramatically for them.

Someone who is 50 now should get their state pension at the age of 67, whereas someone who is 40 now should get it at the age of 68.

As it stands a 30-year-old and 20-year-old are also due to get their state pension at the age of 68, however, the level is still under review and it is highly likely this will change.