header-logo header-logo

22 November 2007
Issue: 7298 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Age discrimination cases on hold

News

All cases relating to dismissal on grounds of retirement arising under reg 30 of the Employment (Equality) Age Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031) are being stayed until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules on the legality of UK retirement law, the president of the Tribunals Service has announced.
Judge Meeran’s announcement follows the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling in Johns v Solent SD Ltd, that the claim should be deferred pending the outcome of the Heyday case: R (on the application of Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Aging) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (see this issue p 1651).

Heyday, Age Concern’s membership organisation, wants the ECJ to determine whether UK rules on age discrimination, allowing employers to retire staff forcibly at the age of 65, breach an EU Directive.
Rachel Dineley, head of the national diversity and discrimination unit at Beachcroft LLP, says the decision may come as an unwelcome surprise to employers.

“Only last month, the decision in the Palacios v Cortefiel Servicios SA case, which allowed Félix Palacios de la Villa’s employer to retire him at 65, brought relief for employers. The ECJ was of the view that the imposition of a retirement age in that case  was objectively justifiable, particularly as it was linked to the provision of a pension.” 

However, she says, the Tribunals Service’s decision muddies the retirement age waters once again. “It gives employees, who are unhappy at being required to retire at or after 65, fresh encouragement to commence proceedings against their employer, particularly as it will require little time and effort to lodge a claim, which will then be stayed until the 2009 Heyday decision. 

“This brings huge uncertainty for employers, whose action in retiring someone under reg 30 would previously have been expected to withstand scrutiny but could now be brought into question. The Heyday decision is a long way off; meanwhile, employers are left in difficulty when it comes to retirement, uncertain as to whether they will be accused of age discrimination.” 

Issue: 7298 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll