Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionCase lawRetirement

Compulsory retirement of a partner

by Matthew Whelan 9 Feb 2009
by Matthew Whelan 9 Feb 2009

Seldon v Clarkson, Wright & Jakes, EAT


Facts


Mr Seldon was a partner in a firm of solicitors, Clarkson, Wright & Jakes. Following a long period of service as a partner, he was compulsorily retired from the partnership on 31 December 2006. The firm’s partnership deed allowed it to compulsorily retire partners at the end of the year in which they reached the age of 65.


Seldon decided that he wished to continue working, and entered into discussions with the firm regarding undertaking work as a consultant after his retirement. The firm decided there was no business case for offering a consultancy role, and his compulsory retirement went ahead. He then brought a claim on the basis that his compulsory retirement constituted unlawful direct age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.


Decision


There has been a lot of controversy about the exemption in regulation 30 of the regulations, which allows for compulsory retirement at the age of 65 or above. This is currently the subject of a challenge in the European Court of Justice in the Heyday case.


Curiously, this exception does not apply to partners. This means that forcing a partner to retire when they reach a certain age will be unlawful unless it can be objectively justified. The ability to objectively justify direct age discrimination is one of the unusual features of age discrimination when compared with discrimination on other grounds. To decide whether something is objectively justified, you need to determine whether it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.


The employment tribunal found that three aims which had been identified by the firm satisfied the objective justification test:




  • retaining associates by ensuring the opportunity for partnership after a reasonable period


  • ensuring effective workforce/succession planning by having a realistic long-term expectation as to when vacancies would arise


  • fostering a congenial and supportive culture by limiting the need to expel partners due to poor performance.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned the tribunal’s decision in respect of the latter, as the firm had not shown adequate justification for fixing the retirement age at 65 to achieve that aim. It found that, while this could be a legitimate aim, the firm had not produced evidence to support its assertion that a partner’s performance would deteriorate at that age, and that this was based on a stereotypical assumption.


The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision that the first two objectives were legitimate aims, but referred the matter back to the tribunal to decide whether the firm’s objective justification defence could succeed when limited to these aims.


The EAT made the observation that the congeniality aim could carry some weight in the tribunal’s decision, albeit the firm had failed to show that this could in itself justify retirement at 65.


Implications


The EAT’s decision (and indeed the tribunal’s consequential ruling) will be of particular interest to professional services firms and other partnerships. It highlights the importance of carefully considering, and taking advice on, retiring partners at a particular age. While the case gives helpful guidance on what may constitute legitimate aims for this purpose, such aims must be relevant to the particular partnership and will not be universally applicable. It is crucial to show that you have evidence that compulsory retirement at that age represents a proportionate means of achieving those aims. It is necessary to be careful, not least because the cost of unsuccessfully defending a claim can be very high where a partner’s earnings are significant.


by Matthew Whelan, solicitor, employment team, Speechly Bircham

Avatar
Matthew Whelan

previous post
Legal dilemma: Redundancies and reservists
next post
Skills agenda is far too complex for employers

You may also like

How to keep up with conflicting voices in...

9 Jun 2023

CIPD Festival of Work 2023: HR has major...

9 Jun 2023

Female graduates’ starting salary lower than men’s

1 Jun 2023

Leaked emails suggest RAF disadvantaged white male applicants

31 May 2023

Hybrid working: Combatting loneliness and enabling inclusion

31 May 2023

Top five findings on DEI and how to...

31 May 2023

Whitehall accused of ‘racist bias’ in civil service...

30 May 2023

Examiner was worker, not self-employed, finds tribunal

30 May 2023

Holiday pay changes: how entitlement will be simplified

26 May 2023

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

26 May 2023

  • The HR Bundle: Your one-stop guide to building a successful global HR Department PROMOTED | Get your hands on Deel’s free HR bundle...Read more
  • The Benefits of an Employee Assistance Programme PROMOTED | EAPs support employees in a range of ways...Read more
  • Intergenerational working and how to manage up and down the generations PROMOTED | The benefits and challenges of intergenerational workplaces...Read more
  • Bereavement in the workplace: How training can help HR get it right PROMOTED | HR professionals play an essential role...Read more
  • UK workforce mental wellbeing needs PROMOTED | The mental wellbeing support employers are providing misses the mark...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 2023

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2023 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+