Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+

Age discriminationEmployment lawEquality, diversity and inclusion

Case round-up: Heyday challenge to compulsory retirement

by Personnel Today 3 Dec 2009
by Personnel Today 3 Dec 2009

The High Court has upheld the UK’s default retirement age, which allows employers to force workers to retire once they reach the age of 65.

As it stands, any retirement at age 65 or above (or at the normal retirement age for the post if that is higher) is lawful as long as the correct retirement procedure is followed.

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, banning age discrimination in employment, came into force in April 2006 to give effect to the European Equal Treatment Directive 2000. However, the UK regulations contain an exception allowing employers to retire employees at 65 or above as long as a retirement process is followed. It’s known as the default or designated retirement age (DRA). Heyday (as it was then, now Age UK, an organisation affiliated to Age Concern) asked the High Court to decide if the DRA was lawful, or contrary to the directive.

Earlier this year, the European Court of Justice said that it was up to the UK courts to decide whether the DRA is lawful. The High Court’s decision is that the DRA of 65 is lawful, but only on the basis that the government reviews it next year.

The court said that having a default retirement age maintains confidence and certainty in the labour market, and that when the age of 65 was set in 2006, it was justifiable based on evidence available at the time.

However, the court said that there was a “compelling case” for raising the DRA or removing it altogether, based on the change in economic circumstances in the meantime. This is likely to mean that, in practice, the default retirement age of 65 has a limited shelf-life.

The government had always intended to review retirement provisions surrounding the DRA, and shortly before the ruling it advised that this was being brought forward to 2010. The court said its decision may well have been different if there had not been not an imminent review or if the regulations had been introduced for the first time in 2009, in which case it would have concluded that a DRA would not have been proportionate.

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.

 Key points

  • If a review of the DRA had not been moved forward, it appears the ruling would have been different.
  • The High Court could not see how the DRA could remain at 65 after next year’s government review.

What you should do

  • Watch out for the government’s review of the DRA in 2010. Given the clear direction in this case, it is likely that the DRA of 65 will not be retained following that review. Although there are calls to abolish forced retirement altogether, this decision does give the government some scope to increase the DRA rather than scrap it altogether. Alternative retirement ages floated in the decision were 68 or 70.
  • Continue to ensure that, when dismissing an employee when they reach the DRA of 65 (or allowing them to work beyond 65), the retirement procedure is followed.

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
HR careers: Switching from HR to management consulting
next post
Case round up: OCS Group UK Ltd v Jones & Ciliza

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Culture, ‘micro-incivilities’ and invisible talent

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...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
OHW+
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
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+