HM Land Registry v Benson & Ors (Age Discrimination : no sub-topic) [2011] UKEAT 0197_11_1002 (10 February 2012)

HM Land Registry v Benson & Ors (Age Discrimination : no sub-topic) [2011] UKEAT 0197_11_1002 (10 February 2012)

The Tribunal erred in requiring the employer to prove that it was absolutely unaffordable to avoid discrimination. The employer's legitimate aim included operating within a set budget, and the use of the cost-based selection criterion was the only practicable means to achieve that aim. Therefore, the age discrimination claims failed. However, in Mrs McGlue's case, the failure to notify her of the exclusion criterion was unfair, and the application of the criterion to her could not be justified as proportionate, so her sex discrimination claim succeeded.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0197_11_1002
Parties
Appellant: Land Registry; First Respondent: Mrs Benson; Second Respondent: Mr Melling; Third Respondent: Mr Wakefield; Fourth Respondent: Mrs Hunt; Fifth Respondent: Mrs Jardine; Sixth Respondent: Mrs McGlue
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; age discrimination claims dismissed; sex discrimination claim upheld.
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Justification, Redundancy, Early Retirement, Selection Criteria
Employment Law Discrimination Law Age Discrimination Sex Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Justification Redundancy Early Retirement +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Land Registry

Appellant

Mrs Benson

First Respondent

Mr Melling

Second Respondent

Mr Wakefield

Third Respondent

Mrs Hunt

Fourth Respondent

Mrs Jardine

Fifth Respondent

Mrs McGlue

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of a cost-based selection criterion for redundancy/early retirement constituted indirect age discrimination and, if so, whether it was justified.
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of employees on long-term career breaks from a redundancy/early retirement scheme constituted indirect sex discrimination and, if so, whether it was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in requiring the employer to prove that it was absolutely unaffordable to avoid discrimination. The employer's legitimate aim included operating within a set budget, and the use of the cost-based selection criterion was the only practicable means to achieve that aim. Therefore, the age discrimination claims failed. However, in Mrs McGlue's case, the failure to notify her of the exclusion criterion was unfair, and the application of the criterion to her could not be justified as proportionate, so her sex discrimination claim succeeded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; age discrimination claims dismissed; sex discrimination claim upheld.

Orders

  • The claims of the age discrimination claimants are dismissed.
  • The finding of indirect sex discrimination in favour of Mrs McGlue is upheld.