header-logo header-logo

Default retirement review

06 November 2009
Issue: 7392 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Businesses have until 1 February 2010 to make their opinions known on the default retirement age review due to take place next year.

Businesses have until 1 February 2010 to make their opinions known on the default retirement age review due to take place next year.

The review will investigate whether the default retirement age of 65 should be abolished.

The government is asking for evidence including: the operation of the default retirement age in practice; the reasons that businesses use mandatory retirement ages; the impact on businesses, individuals and the economy of raising or removing the default retirement age; the experience of businesses operating without a default retirement age; and how any costs of raising or removing the default age could be mitigated and benefits realised.
 

Issue: 7392 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll