Categories:Employment

Supreme Court rejects Seldon age discrimination case

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

Readers' comments (7)

  • Am I alone in thinking that it is outrageous that public money, through the Equal Opportunities Commission, was used to hound a small high street firm to the ends of the earth with this appeal? A small firm has to gamble everything to resist a claim by a partner who resiled from what he had agreed in writing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not outrageous at all - this is a very important point that needed to be tested and has now provided some clarity and guidance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes, but it's one thing to ask a £1 billion turnover Magic Circle firm to assist the public good in testing these points, and quite another to ask a small high street firm to do so. If the important point is of great interest to the public, the public should fund either both sides of the argument or neither.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous 1 makes some very cogent points. Please excuse any ignorance in this question, but can anyone here advise - is there no chance in such a situation of some kind of exceptional application to the Solicitors' Indemnity Fund? Also, I would have thought that the overriding objective would have been applied by the judges in the costs assessment? I will, of course, also do some research on these issues! Thanks.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Astonishingly shameless of judges who claim the right to work to 70 - or even 75 - to suggest that other senior lawyers might be forced to retire at 65!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous 11:06pm-
    If you read it, no judge has suggested that. That question of age has been referred back to tribunal.
    What they have suggested is that the reasons stated by the firm for the direct discrimination were justified, under the backdrop of the law as it stood at the time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • On the costs issue, if this small high street firm didn't want to risk losing everything, then they shouldn't have attempted to hold on to an outdated blanket policy regarding compulsory retirement. That kind of behaviour is firmly routed in the last century plus one. The Equal Opportunities Commission is mandated with ensuring that backward practices do not prejudice capable workers. The cost is irrelevant.

    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 (7)