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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll