header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 November 2007 / Juliet Carp
Issue: 7298 / Categories: Features , EU , Employment
printer mail-detail

Forced out

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Should UK employers ditch compulsory retirement? asks Juliet Carp

UK employers and lawyers are considering the impact of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) decision that compulsory retirement at 65 is allowed in Spain (see Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA: C-411/05 [2007] All ER (D) 207 (Oct)).

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031) (the regulations) were introduced to comply with an EC Directive prohibiting age discrimination (Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (the Directive)) and allow compulsory retirement if a specified procedure is followed.
The Palacios decision follows another high-profile age discrimination decision—a UK employment tribunal recently decided in Bloxham v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (July 2007 Central London Employment Tribunal) that City law firm Freshfields could justify its decision to re-organise pension arrangements to the detriment of some older partners (see NLJ, 2 November 2007, pp 1526–27).

The UK compulsory retirement provisions are being challenged by Heyday, a group connected to the charity Age Concern, and questions have been submitted to the

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
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

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