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 discriminationConstructive dismissalEmployment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionHR practice

Default retirement age: Employers can justify age discrimination, Court of Appeal rules

by Mike Berry 28 Jul 2010
by Mike Berry 28 Jul 2010

Employers that want to enforce a default retirement age (DRA) can rely on objectives that are purely beneficial to their own business, rather than to “society at large”, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

It follows the landmark case of Leslie Seldon, a former senior partner at law firm Clarkson, Wright and Jakes, who was forced to retire at the age of 65 according to the terms of the firm’s partnership deed. Under age discrimination laws introduced in 2006, partners are excluded from the DRA, but can be justifiably made to retire at the age of 65 to achieve business aims – for example, to aid workforce planning.

The judgment upholds the right of partnerships to retire their partners at a chosen retirement age. More importantly, it confirms that employers, whether they are partnerships or companies, can justify age discrimination without being able to show that their actions pursue any form of public policy objective.

Caroline Carter, head of the employment practice at law firm Ashurst, said the decision was good news for all employers.

“The Government is currently reviewing the default retirement age (which applies to employers other than partnerships), with a view to either increasing it or removing it altogether. If it is removed, the Seldon case gives those employers a means to continue using a DRA, if they choose to do so,” she said.

“This could be a valuable way to ensure that businesses can offer much-needed opportunities to graduates and other new recruits, and plan for succession of senior staff more effectively.”

Implications for employers

Compulsory retirement: Court of Appeal dismisses law firm partner’s age discrimination appeal

Read XpertHR’s analysis of the Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes case and find out what the implications are for employers.

Stephen Simpson, employment law editor at XpertHR, added: “The point is also made that, when considering justification, it can be a consideration that a rule such as a compulsory retirement age has been agreed by parties of equal bargaining power.

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.

“While applying here to partnerships, it might also cover very senior members of staff who voluntarily sign up to discriminatory rules.”

The objectives relied on by Clarkson, Wright and Jakes in enforcing its mandatory retirement age were:

  • encouraging retention of more junior employees/partners by ensuring they are given the opportunity of promotion after a reasonable period;
  • facilitating the planning of the business by having realistic expectations of when vacancies will arise; and
  • encouraging a supportive and congenial atmosphere by avoiding the need to expel employees/partners by way of performance management.

Mike Berry

previous post
Male private sector workers least happy with holiday entitlement
next post
Recruitment and health screening in the NHS

You may also like

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

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

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+