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?

Setback in age reform

25 March 2009
Actually, any decision other than that reached by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) would have been a major step into the unknown, leading to a possible significant increase in the working population at a time that would least suit the government and the tax payer.

Background

The UKs Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (EE(A)R) permit employers to impose a compulsory retirement age for employees of 65. Heyday, part of Age Concern, launched a claim that this was contrary to the European Directive on discrimination, on grounds of age. They said their claim reflected the public opinion in a survey they carried out.

The case was referred to the European Court by the High Court in 2006, leaving around 260 tribunal cases on hold, awaiting the outcome.

The decision of the ECJ

The ECJ has ruled that member states can impose a compulsory retirement age if they have a legitimate aim, justified by social policy objectives, and the compulsory retirement age is an appropriate and necessary way of achieving this aim. The case will now be referred back the High Court in London for a decision on this point.

So we have not moved forward from when we reported the Advocate-Generals opinion. A compulsory retirement age is permissible if a member state can justify it.

Any guidance so far?

The UKs compulsory retirement age only applies to employees and certain other limited categories of worker. It does not apply to judges and partners. In these cases a compulsory retirement age must always be justified. This has led to a small number of cases regarding justification being reported already.

Hampton v Ministry of Justice concerned a court recorder, and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes concerned a partner in a law firm; both were retired at age 65. The tribunals in both cases, decided that the aims which the respondents claimed justified the compulsory retirement, were legitimate. In Hampton, this was to maintain a reasonable flow of new appointments; and in Seldon it was to ensure collegiality between partners, i.e. they avoided the ignominy of having to tell a partner whose performance was declining that they ought to leave. Neither were able to show that the provision was proportionate or reasonably necessary to achieve those aims.

It seems the problem in both cases was lack of evidence to back up the impact of allowing employees to stay on beyond retiring age. However, the only sure way of obtaining the evidence would be to allow people to stay on and see what happens.

Challenges to retirement ages have now become de-rigueur for those about to be retired. Two High Court judges are challenging their enforced retirement at age 70.

The High Court decision

The High Court must now decide whether a national default retirement age of 65 is appropriate and necessary to achieve some legitimate aim. The tribunal cases so far may help to identify factors which might justify the default retirement age but the government will somehow have to find evidence that those considerations apply nationally, and not just in those workplaces.

Training and events

9Sep

In house lawyers: our sustainable future Online

This might be the greatest challenge facing C-Suite and legal teams over the next few years. What does that mean for you?

View event

7Oct

In house lawyers: skills and networking session Online

As the pandemic recedes, we'll be getting back together, taking a look at what it means to be a lawyer in 2021 and to have a work-life balance.

View event

Focus on...

Integrated care systems (ICS) development webinar

Catch up on our on-demand video at our ICS development webinar included an overview of new legislation in developing your ICS, as well as the key features for developing integrated care boards, place based arrangements and provider collaboratives.

View

Legal updates

Sexual harassment - changes ahead?

Following #MeToo, a consultation was launched by the Government in July 2019 on Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, considering a number of potential areas for reform.

View

Legal updates

Wellbeing and built estate

The Office for Student’s (OfS) aim is to ensure that every student, whatever their background, has a fulfilling experience of higher education that enriches their lives and careers.

View

Legal updates

The higher the pedestal, the harder the fall

The economy of the last few years has proven beyond doubt that nothing is “too big to fail” and that no sector is immune to insolvency. Despite the prevalence and publicity of such failures, there still seems to be a rose-tinted view that universities and higher education (HE) providers are a safe investment and that the Government will always be there if things go wrong.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up