header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 May 2012 / Monika Sobiecki , Spencer Keen
Issue: 7515 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Discrimination , Terms&conditions , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Age concern

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
istock_000020322761medium_4

European Directives strike again Spencer Keen & Monika Sobiecki investigate

The Supreme Court has delivered its judgments in the appeals of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] UKSC 16, [2012] All ER (D) 121 (Apr) and Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15, [2012] All ER (D) 122 (Apr). These cases answer important questions about the justification of direct and indirect age discrimination, and in particular, how mandatory contractual retirement ages can be justified.

Seldon & direct discrimination

In Seldon, the appellant was a partner in a law firm. A succession of partnership deeds provided for the mandatory retirement of partners at 65. For financial reasons, Mr Seldon wished to work for three further years, and made a series of proposals with a view to doing so. These were all rejected by the other partners. He automatically ceased to be a partner, in accordance with the partnership deed, on 31 December 2006. The respondent firm claimed that his treatment was justified,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll