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

Age discriminationEquality, diversity and inclusionLatest News

Government in dock over ageist retirement clause

by dan thomas 11 Jul 2006
by dan thomas 11 Jul 2006

Employers have been urged to watch closely a High Court claim being brought against the government over the forthcoming age discrimination legislation.

As part of the mandatory retirement age clause, staff  will have a right to request to work beyond the age of 65, but employers will not have to give a reason for refusal.

The Heyday group, backed by Age Concern, claims the new law contravenes European equal rights legislation, and employers should have to give a reason for refusal.

“Taking the government to court is not a step Heyday is taking lightly, but we are determined to challenge the existence and legality of the mandatory retirement age,” the group said. “It’s what people approaching retirement want; it’s good for business, good for the economy and good for society.”

Audrey Williams, employment partner at law firm Eversheds, said the implications for employers would be “very significant” if Heyday succeeded.

“If it establishes that the new legislation isn’t lawful, we will be back to square one in terms of having to look at retirement ages,” she said. “It could cause chaos for employers, with a heightened risk of individuals taking action against them. It will be interesting to see what the government’s response will be.”

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.

Employers will fight any move to include a reason for refusal in the law. The CBI lobbied the Department of Trade and Industry hard during the consultation process to ensure this clause was not part of the regulations. Susan Anderson, director of HR policy at the CBI, said: “Once you are retired, you are retired – you can’t look back and try and find age discrimination.”

The government has until 24 July to respond to Heyday’s application. If the case proceeds, a full hearing could be in early autumn.


dan thomas

previous post
Hit parade…
next post
Police complaints HR boss defends integrity of group

You may also like

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

22 Aug 2025

Exec hauled over coals for sleeping in sauna...

22 Aug 2025

Lidl enters agreement with EHRC to prevent sexual...

22 Aug 2025

Workers need more protection from heatwaves, says WHO

22 Aug 2025

Immigration: huge fall in health and care worker...

22 Aug 2025

Government takes control of UK’s third largest steelworks

22 Aug 2025

X settles severance claims of former Twitter employees

22 Aug 2025

Space X scores court win against US National...

22 Aug 2025

Nature charity unfairly dismisses employee in ‘woeful’ process

22 Aug 2025

What will new workplace heat guidance mean for...

22 Aug 2025

  • 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