Supreme Court tasked with setting compulsory retirement precedent

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Readers' comments (1)

  • Let's take this case to basics. Picture a 3 person partnership. No appraisals/ performance feedback discussions. Just 3 people who came to an agreement in a Partnership Deed including that at the age of 65, partners would retire. All signed and agreed and understood. Why now the confusion when one Partner wants to work longer? If the 65 yr old is performing very well, the remaining Partners may sensibly retain that person, but why this confusion on a pre-existing simple legal agreement.
    If the Supreme Court sees fit to outlaw new Partnership agreements from having an age limit, then this will stoke up years of resentment and under-performance of Partnerships of all sizes, especially small.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down.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 (1)