Retirement

New and updated

  • Johns v Solent SD Ltd

    Date:
    10 December 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Johns v Solent SD Ltd EAT/0449/07, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employment tribunal was wrong not to stay an employee's claim for unfair dismissal and age discrimination until the outcome of Heyday's challenge to the default retirement age.

  • Case of the week: Compulsory retirement risk for private and public sector

    Date:
    27 November 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    This week's case of the week, provided by Addleshaw Goddard, covers compulsory retirement risk for private and public sector.

  • Regent Security Services Ltd v Power

    Date:
    23 November 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Regent Security Services Ltd v Power [2007] EWCA Civ 1188 CA, the Court of Appeal has held that an employee could rely on a variation to his contract of employment that raised his retirement age to 65 and occurred as a result of a transfer.

  • Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA

    Date:
    17 October 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    In FĂ©lix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA Case C-411/05, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given its judgment that the Equal Treatment Directive (2000/78/EC) does not preclude a Spanish law permitting clauses in collective agreements that allow employees to be compulsorily retired when they reach a specified age.

  • Johns v Solent SD Ltd

    Date:
    25 July 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Johns v Solent SD Ltd [2007] ET/00414/07, an employment tribunal has denied a request that proceedings in a claim for unfair dismissal and age discrimination be stayed until the outcome of Heyday's challenge to the default retirement age.

  • Transfer of undertakings: Employees may rely on advantageous variations to contractual terms

    Date:
    9 May 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Power v Regent Security Services Ltd [2007] IRLR 226 EAT, a case brought prior to the 2006 TUPE Regulations coming into effect, the EAT holds that an employee could enforce a contractual variation agreed with the transferee, even though the transfer was the reason for the change. It was not open to the employer to seek to resile from the change on the grounds that the variation was by reason of the transfer itself and therefore void.

  • Equal pay: case law update

    Date:
    2 March 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    This article looks at some of the significant judgments in the area of equal pay over the past year and their implications.

  • Disclaimer in explanatory booklet safeguards trustees

    Date:
    1 March 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    The effectiveness of the protection that disclaimers in scheme explanatory booklets offer has been reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal.

  • TUPE case law update

    Date:
    2 February 2007
    Type:
    Law reports

    This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.

  • Transfer of undertakings: "Normal retiring age" does not transfer under TUPE Regulations

    Date:
    1 December 2006
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Cross and another v British Airways Plc [2006] IRLR 804 CA the Court of Appeal held that employees who had a contractual retiring age of 60 when their employment was transferred under the TUPE Regulations could not claim unfair dismissal when they were subsequently dismissed on reaching their new employer's "normal retiring age" of 55.