header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Age concern

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
25 May 2012 / Monika Sobiecki , Spencer Keen
Issue: 7515 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Discrimination , Terms&conditions , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail
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
Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
Read All
Who’s on the 2026 silk list?
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Arbitration’s fast lane—with guardrails
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll