Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2010] IRLR 865 CA

The case went on to the Supreme Court, which held that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that the firm's aims were capable of being legitimate (Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (a partnership) [2012] IRLR 590 SC). However, the case was sent back to the employment tribunal to consider the proportionality of a retirement specifically at 65 (Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes ET/1100275/2007).

Reports relating to this case:

  • Age discrimination: Compulsory retirement at age 65 was objectively justified

    Date:
    9 November 2010

    In Seldon v Clarkson, Wright and Jakes and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2010] IRLR 865 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employment tribunal did not err in finding the claimant's compulsory retirement at age 65 objectively justified. The policy was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of encouraging young people to seek employment, through the ability to offer good promotion prospects, and of promoting collegiality in the firm.

  • Compulsory retirement: Court of Appeal dismisses law firm partner's age discrimination appeal

    Date:
    29 July 2010

    The Court of Appeal has held that it could be legitimate for a law firm to have a cut-off age after which partners are required to retire to avoid forcing an assessment of their drop in performance, thus maintaining a confrontation-free workplace.