Dinah Rose QC wins landmark retirement case for Government

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Readers' comments (4)

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (4)