0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

mandatory retirement policies judged acceptable – in some cases

27 April 2012

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes concerns the scope for justifying a mandatory retirement age for partners. Unless justified, mandatory retirement would be direct discrimination because of age. Although Mr Seldon’s appeal was dismissed, this doesn’t give employers the green light to enforce retirement; employers still have to ensure that such a policy is ‘proportionate’. Mr Seldon’s case has been remitted to the Employment Tribunal to decide this.

The Court signalled that ‘succession planning’ (i.e. sharing employment opportunities fairly between generations) and limiting the need to expel partners by way of performance management were both legitimate aims which could justify mandatory retirement. Both of these aims have been accepted by the European Court as consistent with Council Directive 2000/78/EC.

The judgment balances the business needs against employee rights – precisely the intention of the Directive; but it does little to help employers know whether they can safely impose retirement ages.

related opinions

The UK - India migration deal

The Young Professionals Scheme will make it easier for young Indian citizens and young Britons to access visas.

View blog

Home Office Central Registry for modern slavery statement goes live - first universities publish statements

The Home Office recently launched a central registry for modern slavery statements. A growing number of educational organisations, including a number of universities, have published statements on the registry.

View blog

Equal pay at ASDA stores - appeal to the Supreme Court unsuccessful

35,000 workers working in ASDA’s retail business sought to compare themselves to workers at distribution depots for equal pay purposes. Find out more about this Employment Appeal Tribunal.

View blog

Supreme Court confirms that sleep ins are not working time

The Supreme Court judgment represents the conclusion on whether or not “sleep in time” should be classified as working time, when calculating the National Minimum Wage (NMW).

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up