header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 July 2013 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7568 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

End of the road

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
istock_000008123244medium

Seldon has left a lasting legal legacy, says Charles Pigott

The dispute between Mr Seldon and law firm Clarkson Wright & Jakes, goes back to May 2006. At that point, his fellow partners rejected a proposal which would have allowed him to continue working as a consultant or salaried partner for three years beyond the partnership retirement age of 65. On 1 October the same year, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031) came into effect. Seldon automatically ceased to be a partner at the end of 2006 in accordance with the partnership deed.

He began proceedings in the employment tribunal in March 2007. The scheme of the regulations, now substantially re-enacted in the Equality Act 2010, outlawed all forms of age discrimination against individuals in a work context, subject to a justification defence and a number of specific exceptions. The most significant of these was the default retirement age. Until its abolition in April 2011, it allowed employers to retire workers compulsorily at the age of 65 without facing claims for age discrimination.

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
Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

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

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
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
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
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
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
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
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll