header-logo header-logo

Age discrimination cases on hold

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

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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll