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

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