header-logo header-logo

23 October 2008
Issue: 7342 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

New route for Rolls Royce

High Court unites in landmark age discrimination case

The High Court has ruled in favour of Unite in a groundbreaking age discrimination case.

Sir Thomas Morison, sitting alone in the high court, ruled in Rolls Royce v Unite [2008] EWHC 2420 (QB), that it was justifi able to take long service into account when selecting workers for redundancy.

Rolls Royce had sought to argue that this amounted to indirect age discrimination, and breached the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031).

Rolls Royce operated a points-based scheme, where points were allocated on various criteria including length of service with the company. It had argued that this was “unlawful age discrimination which could not be justified”. Unite, a trade union, successfully argued that it was lawful.

Michael Stokes, partner at Rowley Ashworth, who advised Unite, says: “This should give employers more confidence about their ability to retain older workers. I am suspicious of some employers’ motives—they have always been able to find justifications for other forms of discrimination, but not for age. When it comes to those provisions, they are almost devoid of ideas. That is not an accident.

“The High Court judge is saying it’s a straightforward matter to justify this [discrimination], that it says so in the legislation, and that it is acceptable to reward the loyalty of older workers.”

Unusually, the case was brought under Pt 8 of the CPR, and determined by a single judge in the High Court, rather than by an employment tribunal. Part 8 is usually used for contractual disputes, where a judge is asked to rule on a point of interpretation.

Stokes, an employment law specialist, says: “I have never seen this route taken before for an employment case.” The case could potentially open up a new route for parties seeking a determination on a grey area of employment law.

Unite joint general secretary Derek Simpson says: “Older workers often find it harder to find alternative employment when they are made redundant”.

Rolls Royce has been granted permission to appeal.

Issue: 7342 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll