Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Latest News

Old men grumpy over Appeal Court ruling on rights

by Personnel Today 3 Sep 2004
by Personnel Today 3 Sep 2004

Two
men fighting for employment rights for older workers are waiting to consider
their next step after the Court of Appeal today turned down their case.

John
Rutherford, 72, and Samuel Bentley, 76, had initially won their case at
Stratford Employment Tribunal, London,
which effectively gave thousands of people working beyond retirement age
employment rights for the first time. However, the secretary of state for trade
and industry went to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), which overturned
the first tribunal’s decision.

Rutherford
and Bentley were given leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and Lord Justice
Mummery, Lord Justice Potter and Lord Justice Scott Baker heard their case in
March. Many other similar cases have been put on hold pending the outcome of
this case.

Paul
Quain, of law firm Charles
Russell’s employment and pensions group, who represented Rutherford,
said: "Naturally, we are disappointed at this decision, but we have
long-prepared for this situation. We believe we have a strong case and we now
have the option of taking this to the House of Lords or European Court of
Justice.

"Judges
who have considered this case before have raised the issue of the compatibility
of this country’s law with that of the European Union," he said.

The
two men had been dismissed from their jobs in the clothing industry as they
were over 65, but the law did not allow them to bring their cases to an
employment tribunal to claim compensation for unfair dismissal or to claim for
redundancy payments.

When
the case was first heard in June 2002, the legal teams argued that there were
twice as many men as women over 65 who worked, and therefore the retirement
cut-off point at 65 years discriminated against men.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

That
August, the tribunal ruled that the two men had suffered indirect sexual
discrimination on the grounds that more men than women worked beyond retirement
age. The EAT overturned that decision on 2 October 2003.

Quentin Reade

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
UK leads the world in online porn at work
next post
Foreign doctor numbers up by 10 per cent

You may also like

Decision to sack man for Michael Jackson noises...

29 Aug 2025

P&O Ferries boss who steered 800 sackings steps...

29 Aug 2025

UK large companies’ succession planning is weak –...

29 Aug 2025

Gender bonus bias widens pay gap, says Brightmine

29 Aug 2025

Bankers learn of redundancy in email gaffe asking...

29 Aug 2025

Cabin crew manager with ‘flirty banter’ loses discrimination...

29 Aug 2025

Council clerk sacked after trying to ensure his...

29 Aug 2025

Four-day working week trial in Scotland’s public sector...

29 Aug 2025

Day one rights in the Employment Rights Bill...

28 Aug 2025

EHRC acts on policies flouting law on single-sex...

28 Aug 2025

  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise