header-logo header-logo

Retirement decision gives employers breathing space

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll