Construction litigation specialist Scott became a partner in 1992 and an equity partner in 1997. The firm had a policy that partners retire at 60 unless members agree otherwise.
He applied in 2020 for a three-year exceptional extension to remain at the firm beyond the age of 60, which was granted on the grounds he had made an ‘exceptional contribution’. On his next application, in 2023, for a further two years, he was rejected.
Walker Morris argued its policy was justified as it protected the interests of the business and ensured inter-generational fairness. It contended the decision not to postpone Scott’s retirement was entirely unrelated to his age and instead because he did not demonstrate he could make an exceptional contribution.
Upholding Scott’s claim, the tribunal noted the firm’s approach was underpinned by ‘discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners’ which were ‘not supported by any documentary or objective evidence’ and represented ‘the type of assumption that the age discrimination legislation is designed to counter’.
His solicitor, Giles Ward, partner at Milners, said: ‘This far-reaching judgment will be of obvious interest to law firms and other professional service firms across the UK with mandatory retirement policies.
‘It reflects the current position in age discrimination law and engages in detail with the Supreme Court's benchmark decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16, handed down more than a decade ago.’ In Seldon, brought by retired solicitor Leslie Seldon, the court held a Kent law firm’s compulsory retirement age was directly discriminatory but could be justified as based on a legitimate aim of ‘inter-generational fairness’.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
