D Pelter v Buro Four Project Services Limited

D Pelter v Buro Four Project Services Limited

The employer did not subject the claimant to direct age discrimination because, at the time access to the PHI scheme was provided and crystallised (when the claimant became incapacitated), the cessation of benefits at age 65 was lawful under the statutory exception in paragraph 14 of Schedule 9 Equality Act 2010. The cessation of payments at age 65 was determined by the insurer under the terms of the scheme, not by the employer. The claim was also out of time and there was no basis to extend the limitation period.

Parties
Appellant: MR D Pelter; Respondent: Buro Four Project Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Permanent Health Insurance, Justification Defence, Limitation of Actions
Employment Law Equality Law Age Discrimination Permanent Health Insurance Justification Defence Limitation of Actions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MR D Pelter

Appellant

Buro Four Project Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cessation of permanent health insurance (PHI) benefits at age 65 constituted direct age discrimination by the employer
  2. 2 Whether the employer's actions fell within the statutory exception for insurance under paragraph 14 of Schedule 9 Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the claim was brought within the statutory time limits or should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

The employer did not subject the claimant to direct age discrimination because, at the time access to the PHI scheme was provided and crystallised (when the claimant became incapacitated), the cessation of benefits at age 65 was lawful under the statutory exception in paragraph 14 of Schedule 9 Equality Act 2010. The cessation of payments at age 65 was determined by the insurer under the terms of the scheme, not by the employer. The claim was also out of time and there was no basis to extend the limitation period.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed