Dinah Rose QC wins landmark retirement case for Government
Related images
Blackstone Chambers’ Dinah Rose QC has won a major victory for the Government that will make it legal for employers to retire employees at the age of 65.
In giving his judgment, however, Mr Justice Blake said that if the Government had not announced that it would bring forward its review of the default retire age (DRA), which is currently 65, he would have found against the Government.
In his ruling Blake J said of a retirement age of 65: “It creates greater discriminatory effect than is necessary on a class of people who are able to and want to continue their employment.”
According to Paul Epstein QC of Cloisters Chambers, who chairs the Employment Law Bar Association, the judgment effectively put the onus on the Government to either abandon the DRA or raise it.
The Government announced that it would address regulations relating to the DRA days before the case commenced in June.
“Tactically it was quite astute on the part of the Government,” Epstein commented.
Beachcroft employment partner Rachel Dineley added: “Given the judge’s comments, it’s clear that employers cannot afford to be complacent as the default retirement age of 65 may not be sustainable for much longer.”
The decision addresses an application for judicial review by the Heyday group, a former branch of Age Concern, which argued that the compulsory retirement age of 65 allowed under the Employment Equality (Age) regulations 2006 was incompatible with the European Equal Treatment (Framework) Directive.
Therefore, the claimants argued, it was discriminatory.
The case will affect employees specifically. The situation for partnerships will be clarified when the judgment in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes is handed down
(8 July 2009).
In the case that concluded today Rose (pictured) was instructed by The Treasury solicitors to act for the Secretary of State for Business Skills and Innovation, formerly the Secretary of State for Business and Industry.
Irwin Mitchell instructed Cloisters’ Robin Allen QC to act for claimants Age UK, formerly Age Concern and Heyday.
Keith Ashcroft, a lawyer at The Equality and Human Rights Commission, instructed Lord Anthony Lester of Blackstone Chambers to act as an intervener on the claimant side.
For an interview with Dinah Rose click here.
Readers' comments (4)
Joanna Blackburn, head of employment Mishcon de Re | 25-Sep-2009 4:02 pm
The High Court’s decision today has clarified the issue of the compulsory retirement age for now, but it is unlikely that the retirement age of 65 will remain for much longer.
The Government has already decided to bring forward its review of the compulsory retirement age to next year, and there were clear indications in the High Court's judgement that it will expect a change to be made as part of that review.
We have anticipated that considerations such as the current economic climate and the aging population might influence the Government’s decision to raise or abolish the compulsory retirement age. The fact that the High Court has indicated that any attempt to retain the retirement age at 65 beyond that review was unlikely to meet the requirement for the retirement age to be proportionate is likely to be a further spur for change. Retaining the status quo beyond the review is likely to mean that the retirement age would fall foul of the age discrimination laws.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Sep-2009 4:33 pm
I am sorry to stick my wooden spoon in - but the DRA may well be 65 but I am supposed to work until I am more than 67 because I happen to have been born after 1960... I find this is an atrocity. I have already done over 25 years work (constant - except 4 mths after baby born) so when I retire I will have done over 40 years work. Why has my retirement age gone up but not the age for the people that either govern me or employ me.
Once again one rule for "them" and another for "us"...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
B1 | 25-Sep-2009 9:16 pm
Well bully for you if you want to retire at 67. I think you have rather missed the point - some people may not want to,, and they should not be forced to it.
As for a law for "them" and "us", what utter rubbish! A person can retire at whatever age they like. If you have made sufficient provisions to retire before the required age, whatever it happens to be, you can freely do so!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Carl Barron | 26-Sep-2009 3:01 pm
Priority should be given to employing the young and unemployed. Not retaining the elderly as most of this (so-called) need is seen to be just greed from my personal experiences.
I’ve seen old men struggle into to work just to gain the maximum monies possible before retirement, yet boasting as to more and more holidays abroad, new cars, new kitchens for the Wife and a whole host other things.
Stop being so greedy and give the youngsters a chance will you?
Signed Carl Barron founder & Chairman of agpcuk
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment