Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • 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
  • 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
    • 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+

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.

“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.

Avatar
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

Legal expert calls new holiday pay regulations ‘incoherent’

30 Nov 2023

What will it mean to be an HR...

28 Nov 2023

Train driver unfairly dismissed after tarantula prank

28 Nov 2023

Cruise giant accused of planning ‘fire and rehire’...

24 Nov 2023

CFO wins discrimination claims after menopause comment

24 Nov 2023

Burges Salmon takes home 2023 Employment Law Firm...

21 Nov 2023

McDonald’s: How can employers prevent sexual harassment?

21 Nov 2023

Browne Jacobson takes home 2023 Equality, Diversity and...

21 Nov 2023

Entain and McLaren F1 are favourites in the...

21 Nov 2023

Two-thirds say periods have negative impact on work

20 Nov 2023

  • How to spot and tackle imposter syndrome in the workplace PROMOTED | Half of all UK adults...Read more
  • BetterMe for Business: How to Build Wellness Culture at Work PROMOTED | Ever encountered a...Read more
  • Global growth with simple HR compliance (webinar) WEBINAR | In an increasingly global marketplace...Read more
  • Talent acquisition: How AI can complement a ‘back to basics’ approach PROMOTED | Artificial intelligence is now...Read more
  • What will it mean to be an HR professional in 2024? (webinar) WEBINAR | As we approach 2024...Read more
  • HR Budget Planning for 2024: Preparing your People Strategy PROMOTED | As organisations continue to adapt...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
    • 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+