header-logo header-logo

06 September 2007
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

65 AND OUT

In brief

The Heyday ageism case which challenges mandatory retirement ages has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. The High Court has referred five questions to the ECJ which address whether parts of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2408) properly implement the EU Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EC. Heyday and Age Concern believe the new rules breach the Directive because they leave people over 65 without the right to choose to continue to work and enable employers to refuse to recruit anyone over the age of 65.

Issue: 7287 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll