header-logo header-logo

Forced out

22 November 2007 / Juliet Carp
Issue: 7298 / Categories: Features , EU , Employment
printer mail-detail

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll