Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell. Carson argued that she was being unfairly treated. She says she had paid the same National Insurance contributions (NICs) as a United Kingdom resident and therefore she should receive the same pension. She is supported by associations of expatriate pensioners in South Africa and elsewhere. Lord Hoffman said: "Carson's case is typical of over 400,000 United Kingdom pensioners living abroad in countries which do not have reciprocal treaty arrangements under which cost of living increases are payable. Arrangements exist for countries within EEA countries (European Union countries, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and a number of other countries such as the United States ("treaty countries"). However, there are no such treaties with South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries".para 6 The House of Lords accepted the Secretary of State's arguments with regards to Reynolds. Lord Walker and Lord Nichols referred to case law saying they would intensely scrutinise race, sex and orientation justifications. But age was not in that. It is "a personal characteristic", said Lord Walker, "but it is different in kind from other personal characteristics. Every human being starts life as a tiny infant and none of us can do anything to stop the passage of the years. Lines must be drawn somewhere, and "drawing lines which create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary". The key issue was whether the Secretary of State had the right to deal with Jobseeker's Allowance claimants who were under 25 in a different way to those who were over the age of 25.paras 36 & 37 It was also noted that the age qualification had replaced a previous unworkable qualification of householders and non-householders. Lord Carswell agreed with the other judges in rejecting Reynolds's appeal but would have allowed Carson's appeal and declared that he considered regulation 3 of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/910) to be unlawful.para 104 In addition, he cited a number of other for allowing Carson's appeal.paras: 96-104 The judgment of the Law Lords was 4 to 1 in favour of the Secretary of State. Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom (2008) Cited as: [2009] 48 EHRR 41, [2008] ECHR 1194, 48 EHRR 41 Carson was joined by 12 other applicants from Australia and Canada who were