Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (Age Discrimination) [2014] UKEAT 0434_13_1305 (13 May 2014)

Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (Age Discrimination) [2014] UKEAT 0434_13_1305 (13 May 2014)

The Tribunal was entitled to find that a mandatory retirement age of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of associate retention and workforce planning. The fact that a slightly higher age could also have been justified does not render the choice of 65 unlawful. The Tribunal's approach was consistent with the applicable legal principles and supported by evidence.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0434_13_1305
Parties
Appellant: Mr Seldon; Respondent: Solicitors’ Practice (Respondent)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision After Supreme Court Remittal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Objective Justification, Mandatory Retirement Age, Proportionality, Workforce Planning
Employment Law Equality Law Age Discrimination Objective Justification Mandatory Retirement Age Proportionality Workforce Planning

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Seldon

Appellant

Solicitors’ Practice (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision After Supreme Court Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory retirement age of 65 in the partnership deed was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims and thus justified under age discrimination law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find that a mandatory retirement age of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of associate retention and workforce planning. The fact that a slightly higher age could also have been justified does not render the choice of 65 unlawful. The Tribunal's approach was consistent with the applicable legal principles and supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the Employment Tribunal's decision is upheld.