Blackstone Chambers has won a key age discrimination ruling for the Government in the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The ECJ has ruled that employees aged 65 or over can legally be forced into retirement. The dispute between Heyday, a part of charity Age Concern, and the Government will affect more than a million people already past retirement age.
Andrew Lockley (pictured), a partner at Irwin Mitchell acting for Heyday, said: “This is a very important decision for anyone who is approaching the current retirement age, many of whom still feel they have a lot to offer and want to continue working. The law needed clarification, as neither employers nor older employees knew where they stood.”
He added: “The decision of the ECJ will guide the High Court when it comes to consider whether the UK Government can justify the default retirement age of 65.”
In July 2006, Heyday applied for a judicial review into 2006 age discrimination regulations on the grounds that they breach the UK’s obligations under the 2000 Framework Directive.
The challenge focused on the provision that employees aged 65 or over who are forcibly retired cannot claim that their dismissal is unlawful age discrimination. The High Court referred the case to the ECJ.
Cloisters head of chambers Robin Allen QC led Declan O’Dempsey, also of Cloisters, for Heyday. The pair were instructed by Irwin Mitchell on behalf of Heyday.
Blackstone silk Dinah Rose QC acted for the UK Government, instructed by the Treasury solicitors.
For more on Heyday, see our special report, or read our age discrimination special report.
The government shouldn’t have fought this
With the baby boomers all about to drop out of the tax-giving group and into the tax-receiving one, the government should welcome anyone who wants to stay in the former group for longer, not fight their right to do so.
There is a booming trade in activity holidays, treks in the Andes, etc aimed at the retired that suggests that many thousands of them are far, far from the knacker’s yard yet. Why force them out of the taxbase?
I totally agree with the “Dismayed’s” comment;
The government is introducing a policy of increasing the retuirement age towards 70years. It therefore seems very unlikely that they will be able to prove that forcing current workers who wish to continue working to retire at 65 is in the national interest.
This case will then prove to have been a huge waste of money when the government could have got this advice and changed their policy to match their own long-term aims.