header-logo header-logo

20 January 2011
Issue: 7449 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

DRA approaches retirement

The default retirement age will cease to exist from October

Employment lawyers predict that the cost of insurance benefits and redundancy compensation will increase for many employers as a result of the phasing out of the default retirement age (DRA).

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) confirmed last week that employers will no longer be able to compulsorily retire employees at 65 under DRA as of 1 October 2011. The DRA is to be phased out from 6 April onwards. This means that:

  • from 6 April, employers can no longer issue any notifications for compulsory retirement under DRA; and
  • between 6 April and 1 October, only people who were notified before 6 April and whose retirement date is before 1 October can be compulsorily retired under DRA.

Employers will continue to be able to operate a compulsory retirement age as long as they can justify it objectively. BIS offered air traffic controllers
and police officers as an example of this.

BIS has included an exemption for group risk insured benefits such as income protection, life assurance, sickness and accident insurance so that employers can continue to withdraw these when the employee reaches the age of 65.

ACAS has issued a 20-page guide for employers on the changes.
Employment lawyers said there was a lot for employers
to consider.

Rachel Dineley, age discrimination expert at Beachcroft, says: “The prospective cost to employers will vary considerably, depending on the nature of the organisation, age profile of its workforce and adequacy of pensions provision.

“In many cases it will lead to an increase in cost of both insurance benefits and redundancy compensation and there may also be a cost involved in making ‘reasonable adjustments’ when managing any potential disability issues.

“A key concern raised by the Confederation of British Industry was how an employer can manage an employee whose performance has started to decline – this will require careful management on the part of the employer, and while ACAS has produced guidance, the reality is that managers will need support and training to understand and proactively address problems where they arise. No ageist assumptions should be made along the way.”
 

Issue: 7449 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll