header-logo header-logo

16 July 2009
Issue: 7378 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Retirement under review

Employment

A review of the default retirement age (DRA) is to be brought forward to next year, as part of a government strategy to prepare for an ageing society.
The DRA review, originally scheduled for 2011, will look at ways to give people flexible retirement options. Currently, employers can require all staff to retire at 65 regardless of their circumstances. While the majority of people retire before 65, 1.3 million people choose to work beyond state pension age. However, Faith Dickson, partner at niche pension firm, Sacker & Partners, says: “It’s not impossible that removing the default retirement age entirely could discriminate against younger people trying to enter a difficult job market. Having a default retirement age also gives employers some certainty about managing their workforce. While you can’t disagree with the basic sentiment that people shouldn’t be written off as being too old to work, surely we must also give some importance to employers having certainty in managing their workforce, and allowing young people entry into the job market?

“Since pension schemes currently enjoy a number of exceptions from the general principles of the anti-age discrimination legislation, those of us in the pensions world can only hope that this doesn’t become the first in a long line of reviews of the exceptions that apply under the legislation.”

Issue: 7378 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll