header-logo header-logo

01 October 2009
Issue: 7387 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Retirement decision gives employers breathing space

Compulsory retirement age remains legal...but only just

Compulsory retirement at the age of 65 will continue to be legal in the UK, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Blake found that reg 30 of the Employment Equality Age Regulations 2006, which allows employers to compulsorily retire staff at 65, did not contravene the anti-age discrimination provisions in the Equal Treatment Framework Directive. However, he said he would have ruled differently had the government not said it would review the retirement age next year.
The case, R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for BIS [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), generally referred to as the “Heyday” case, was referred to the European Court of Justice, which found in March that a compulsory retirement age can be justified as long as it is a proportionate response to a legitimate employment policy aim. It then returned to the High Court, where Blake J accepted reg 30 was justified because of the need for workforce planning by employers, and the fact that the government intends to review the retirement age in 2010.

In his judgment, Blake J said: “I cannot presently see how 65 could remain as a DRA [default retirement age] after the review.”

More than 260 age discrimination cases pending in tribunals, where workers have been dismissed at 65, will now be dismissed.

Daniel Barnett, employment barrister at 1 Temple Gardens, says: “The retirement age has remained legal—but only just. Hundreds of compensation cases by people forced to retire at 65, which were awaiting the result of this decision, will now be dismissed.

This puts huge pressure on the government to change or scrap the mandatory retirement age. If the government abolishes the national retirement age, it means that employers may end up humiliating older workers by forcing them out using performance management, or by inventing excuses to avoid stagnation of an ageing workforce.”

Paul Epstein QC, of Cloisters, said: “For employers, this decision gives some welcome clarification although only in the short term.”

Junior counsel for Age UK, the claimant, Declan O’Dempsey, has confirmed that there will be no appeal.

Issue: 7387 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll