header-logo header-logo

Heyday fuels age debate

24 July 2009
Issue: 7379 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Pressure on the government to abandon the national default retirement age (DRA) mounted last week as a landmark case reached the High Court.

In what has become known as ‘the Heyday case’, Age Concern and Help the Aged argued that the national DRA introduced under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 fails to interpret an EU Directive against age discrimination correctly. The case returned to the High Court following a European Court of Justice ruling earlier this year that compulsory retirement can be justified only if it is a “proportionate” means of achieving a social policy objective related to employment, such as vocational training or labour market policy.More than 300 employment appeals are on hold until this case clarifies the law.

Last week, the government announced it was bringing forward a review of the DRA, originally scheduled for 2011, to next year. The review will look at ways to give people flexible retirement options.

However, Faith Dickson, partner at niche pension firm, Sacker & Partners, says the DRA gives employers “some certainty about

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