header-logo header-logo

01 October 2009
Issue: 7387 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Retirement decision gives employers breathing space

Compulsory retirement age remains legal...but only just

Compulsory retirement at the age of 65 will continue to be legal in the UK, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Blake found that reg 30 of the Employment Equality Age Regulations 2006, which allows employers to compulsorily retire staff at 65, did not contravene the anti-age discrimination provisions in the Equal Treatment Framework Directive. However, he said he would have ruled differently had the government not said it would review the retirement age next year.
The case, R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for BIS [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), generally referred to as the “Heyday” case, was referred to the European Court of Justice, which found in March that a compulsory retirement age can be justified as long as it is a proportionate response to a legitimate employment policy aim. It then returned to the High Court, where Blake J accepted reg 30 was justified because of the need for workforce planning by employers, and the fact that the government intends to review the retirement age in 2010.

In his judgment, Blake J said: “I cannot presently see how 65 could remain as a DRA [default retirement age] after the review.”

More than 260 age discrimination cases pending in tribunals, where workers have been dismissed at 65, will now be dismissed.

Daniel Barnett, employment barrister at 1 Temple Gardens, says: “The retirement age has remained legal—but only just. Hundreds of compensation cases by people forced to retire at 65, which were awaiting the result of this decision, will now be dismissed.

This puts huge pressure on the government to change or scrap the mandatory retirement age. If the government abolishes the national retirement age, it means that employers may end up humiliating older workers by forcing them out using performance management, or by inventing excuses to avoid stagnation of an ageing workforce.”

Paul Epstein QC, of Cloisters, said: “For employers, this decision gives some welcome clarification although only in the short term.”

Junior counsel for Age UK, the claimant, Declan O’Dempsey, has confirmed that there will be no appeal.

Issue: 7387 / 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