Supreme Court hears argument on the nature of the justification defence for retiring law firm partner

1st February 2012

The Supreme Court has met to consider the age discrimination case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes.

Leslie Seldon was retired by his law firm Clarkson Wright & Jakes when he reached 65. The firm justified his retirement on the basis that younger employees needed the opportunity to move up through the ranks, that it enabled the law firm to forward plan more easily and it prevented the firm from having to get rid of older partners using more confrontational mechanisms like performance reviews.

The case was initially heard before the Government removed the default retirement age of 65 last October. It is now illegal to sack someone from their job simply because they reach a certain age unless it can be justified. However, as a partner of the law firm rather than an employee, Mr Seldon was not subject to the default retirement age of 65 in any case.

Anna Beale said:

"The case is significant because of the implications it will have for how partners can be retired from partnerships but it could also have wider consequences.

"Following the abolition of the default retirement age, their Lordships'findings on whether, and when, forced retirement can be justified will influence the treatment of all employees."

In 2008 and the 2010 the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, respectively, agreed that the law firm's aims were legitimate and the forced retirement justifiable.

The case is being heard with Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police.

Mr Homer was refused promotion for a higher grade job on the basis that he did not meet the essential requirement of having a law degree. At the age of 61, however, the Employment Tribunal agreed that Mr Homer was being indirectly discriminated against on the basis of his age because he did not have time to do a law degree before he retired. The EAT and the Court of Appeal however disagreed arguing that the disadvantage arose because of retirement, not age.

Cloisters barristers Robin Allen QC and Declan O'Dempsey represent Mr Homer.

Robin Allen QC, together with Dee Masters, also represents Mr Seldon, instructed by the EHRC.  Declan O'Dempsey has been instructed to intervene in the Seldon case by Age UK.

News coverage

The Lawyer