Retirement age remains at 65 years: High Court calls for the Government to change the law

Age UK, R (on the application of) v Attorney General [2009] EWHC 2336

www.workrep.co.uk

    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

25/09/2009


  • Employers may continue to dismiss workers at the statutory retirement age of 65years.
  • Age Concern (Heyday) and Help the Aged had argued in the High Court that the compulsory retirement age goes against EU regulations but had already earlier this year lost a case in the European Court (ECJ)where it argued that the Employment Equality (Age Discrimination) Regulations 2006 allowing employers to make workers retire at 65 is inconsistent with the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive as it does not allow discrimination on the grounds of age.
  • The government relied on an escape clause in Article 6(1)that if, within the context of national law, (age discrimination is allowed if) objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary (proportionate and legitimate).
  • In the High Court Heyday argued for the striking down of Regulation 30 of the Age Regulations as, according to Heyday, the government was pursuing no clear and consistent social policy aim in maintaining a Default Retirement Age (DRA) of 65 and was in any case not supported by the EHRC that maintained that the earliest appropriate age for a DRA was 70 years.
  • Mr Justice Blake declined to rule in favour of Age Concern that argued that forcing people over 65years of age into retirement when they have inadequate pensions is neither proportionate or legitimate. He ruled instead that the government had explained its social aims for the integrity of the labour market thus justifying Regulation 30 as legitimate and proportionate, that the Default Retirement Age introduced by the government in 2006 complied with the EC Directive against age discrimination.
  • The judge did refer to the Government's intention to carry out a review of the compulsory retirement age in 2010 in supporting his decision to accept the proportionality and legitimacy of the present retirement age.
  • In light of the proposed government review Age Concern (Heyday) / Help the Aged do not intend to appeal.
  • Hundreds of stayed age discrimination cases in tribunals that were awaiting the outcome of this decision will now be dismissed.

 


The transcript of this case follows:-   Age Concern retirement age high court appeal

Some recent employment cases:-
2009
Contract was ultra vires but employee still able to pursue unfair dimsissal claim under ERA 96 - Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital NHS Trust v Lairikyengbam [2009] UKEAT 0499_08_2108
Redundancies - ECJ rules that consultations do not need to begin until the parent company decides which subsidiary will be affected - Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy - ECJ [2009] Case C-44/08
ECJ rules holiday entitlement must not be lost through illness - Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA - ECJ [2009] C-277/08
Costs follow lies (breaching confidentiality in a compromise agreement) - Dunedin Housing Association Ltd v. Donaldson - UKEAT [2009] 0014_09_0807
Pre-contractual negotiations can not be used as evidence for the meaning of a contract - Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd & Ors [2009] UKHL 38
Failure to fully exhaust statutory dispute resolution procedures means a claimant is barred from seeking redress in the courts - Booth v Oldham MBC [2009] EWCA Civ 880
Employers can not hide behind 'substantial equivalence' arguments to justify post TUPE contract changes - TAPERE v SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS TRUST - [2009] UKEAT 0410_08_1908
The EAT rejects the refusing of the sole candidate for a job by citing conflict of interest and health and safety arguments - Amnesty International v Ahmed - [2009] UKEAT 0447_08_1308
Human Rights Legislation Fails To Protect Unions Against TULCRA - Employers must be informed promply of strike ballot results - METROBUS LIMITED v UNITE [2009] EWCA Civ 829
There is a right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 789

Downloading, publishing, forwarding or any distribution etc of this or any other WorkRep article is subject to license. Workers (excluding HR, reps or consultants etc) researching their own tribunal cases may download for their own use up to 30 pages of WorkRep material free.

Do you have a problem at work? Are you being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work or have you been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed? If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work

Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only.  Please read the site info before using this website  © 2009 Workrep