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 discriminationEquality, diversity and inclusionLatest NewsRetirement

Landmark case rules compulsory retirement is not discriminatory

by Mike Berry 25 Jan 2008
by Mike Berry 25 Jan 2008

Age discrimination law is in disarray in the wake of a landmark employment tribunal case, legal experts have warned.


A tribunal ruled that Kent-based law firm Clarkson Wright and Jakes (CWJ) did not discriminate against Leslie Seldon, a former senior partner, by forcing him to retire at the age of 65.


CWJ accepted that compulsory retirement was an act of less favourable treatment, but denied discrimination on the grounds that it was justified.


The firm argued that it was proportionate to force partners to retire in order to achieve a number of business aims – for example, to aid workforce planning. The tribunal agreed with CWJ, and ruled that it didn’t matter whether those aims had been fulfilled in Seldon’s case.


Seldon said he planned to appeal the decision.


Even before this decision, many legal commentators had questioned the legality of the compulsory retirement age for employees, and the outcome of the Heyday challenge in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is keenly awaited.


Meanwhile, claims brought by employees are being put on hold pending the outcome of the case.


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.

Jo Davis, partner and head of the employment team at law firm B P Collins, which represented Seldon, said: “If the ECJ challenge is successful and Mr Seldon’s appeal is not, we could find ourselves in the reverse situation to that legislated for: employees able to choose to work beyond 65, and partners who are forced to retire.


“Until we have clarity, many partners may struggle to work beyond 65, even if they wish to.”

Mike Berry

previous post
AUDIO – Friday Podcast: how a recession could affect HR, MP3 players for NHS staff for e-learning, how to deal with MPs, and KPMG merges country subsidiaries
next post
New benefit launched to help SME employees save money

You may also like

Company director wins £15k after being told to...

4 Jul 2025

Skills shortfall in construction threatens housing target

4 Jul 2025

MPs demand Home Office tightens visas to protect...

4 Jul 2025

It’s all about the Monet: how art transforms...

3 Jul 2025

Stop chasing quick fixes: return to the office...

3 Jul 2025

Asda hails major upgrade in employees’ benefits

3 Jul 2025

100% success for latest large-scale four-day week trial

3 Jul 2025

NHS 10-year Health Plan sets out vision for...

3 Jul 2025

Microsoft to cut 9,000 jobs globally as role...

3 Jul 2025

Decline in workplace deaths: falls from height remain...

3 Jul 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...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+