Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (A Partnership) & Anor

Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (A Partnership) & Anor

A compulsory retirement age of 65 in a partnership deed is not unlawful direct age discrimination if the aims pursued are legitimate and consistent with social policy objectives underlying the Age Regulations, and if the age chosen is a proportionate means of achieving those aims. The aims of providing partnership opportunities, workforce planning, and promoting collegiality are legitimate and the choice of 65 is proportionate. The application of the rule to Mr Seldon was justified.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Leslie Seldon; Respondent: Clarkson Wright & Jakes (a partnership); Intervener: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Compulsory Retirement, Justification of Direct Discrimination, Partnership Law
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Law Age Discrimination Compulsory Retirement Justification of Direct Discrimination Partnership Law

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Leslie Seldon

Appellant

Clarkson Wright & Jakes (a partnership)

Respondent

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compulsory retirement at age 65 in a partnership deed constitutes unlawful direct age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
  2. 2 Whether the aims relied on by the partnership for compulsory retirement are legitimate and consistent with social policy objectives.
  3. 3 Whether the retirement age of 65 is a proportionate means of achieving those aims.

Ratio Decidendi

A compulsory retirement age of 65 in a partnership deed is not unlawful direct age discrimination if the aims pursued are legitimate and consistent with social policy objectives underlying the Age Regulations, and if the age chosen is a proportionate means of achieving those aims. The aims of providing partnership opportunities, workforce planning, and promoting collegiality are legitimate and the choice of 65 is proportionate. The application of the rule to Mr Seldon was justified.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed