header-logo header-logo

22 November 2007
Issue: 7298 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Age discrimination cases on hold

News

All cases relating to dismissal on grounds of retirement arising under reg 30 of the Employment (Equality) Age Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031) are being stayed until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules on the legality of UK retirement law, the president of the Tribunals Service has announced.
Judge Meeran’s announcement follows the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling in Johns v Solent SD Ltd, that the claim should be deferred pending the outcome of the Heyday case: R (on the application of Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Aging) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (see this issue p 1651).

Heyday, Age Concern’s membership organisation, wants the ECJ to determine whether UK rules on age discrimination, allowing employers to retire staff forcibly at the age of 65, breach an EU Directive.
Rachel Dineley, head of the national diversity and discrimination unit at Beachcroft LLP, says the decision may come as an unwelcome surprise to employers.

“Only last month, the decision in the Palacios v Cortefiel Servicios SA case, which allowed Félix Palacios de la Villa’s employer to retire him at 65, brought relief for employers. The ECJ was of the view that the imposition of a retirement age in that case  was objectively justifiable, particularly as it was linked to the provision of a pension.” 

However, she says, the Tribunals Service’s decision muddies the retirement age waters once again. “It gives employees, who are unhappy at being required to retire at or after 65, fresh encouragement to commence proceedings against their employer, particularly as it will require little time and effort to lodge a claim, which will then be stayed until the 2009 Heyday decision. 

“This brings huge uncertainty for employers, whose action in retiring someone under reg 30 would previously have been expected to withstand scrutiny but could now be brought into question. The Heyday decision is a long way off; meanwhile, employers are left in difficulty when it comes to retirement, uncertain as to whether they will be accused of age discrimination.” 

Issue: 7298 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll