All items: Retirement

• expand

  Bailey v R&R Plant (Peterborough) Ltd EAT/0370/10 (3 reports relating to this case)

  The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal against this EAT decision that, when an employer was informing an employee of the right to request not to retire under the repealed statutory default retirement procedures, it was required to cite para.5 of sch.6 to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. However, the Court of Appeal did say that there was no requirement on the employer to inform the employee of the requirements of a valid request (R&R Plant (Peterborough) Ltd v Bailey [2012] IRLR 503 CA).

  • Unfair dismissal: Employer failed to comply with retirement formalities

    Date:

    18 January 2012

    In Bailey v R&R Plant (Peterborough) Ltd EAT/0370/10, the EAT held that the employer failed to comply with the retirement procedures in sch.6 to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 when it failed to inform the employee that any request not to be retired had to be in writing and had to state that it was made under para.5(3) of sch.6.

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 July 2011

    Claire Benson is managing associate and Helen Corbett, Sinead Jones, Helen Ward and Tori O'Neil are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.

  • Statutory retirement procedures: employer must inform employee of conditions to make a valid request

    Date:

    24 May 2011

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, under the statutory default retirement procedures (now repealed), the employer must inform the employee of the essential conditions for exercising the right to request to work beyond the intended retirement date. 

• expand

  Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien and others [1994] IRLR 580 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Exclusions and qualifications: Phased implementation did not override normal retiring age

    Date:

    1 October 1994

    Employees who were compelled to retire between the ages of 60 and 65 were not entitled to complain of unfair dismissal, because a normal retiring age of 60 applied to those in their position, holds the Court of Appeal in Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien and others.

• expand

  Bratko v Beloit Walmsley Ltd [1995] IRLR 629 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Normal retiring age: Unilateral lowering of retiring age was ineffective

    Date:

    1 February 1996

    In Bratko v Beloit Walmsley Ltd the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal was wrong to find that an employer's action in unilaterally reducing the age at which employees had to retire to an age below the contractual retiring age established a new "normal retiring age".

• expand

  Brooks and others v British Telecommunications plc [1992] IRLR 66 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Brooks and others v British Telecommunications plc

    Date:

    1 February 1992

    In Brooks and others v British Telecommunications plc [1992] IRLR 66 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Tribunal had not erred in holding that the appellants were over normal retiring age when they were dismissed and that, therefore, they were excluded by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, section 64(1)(b)(i) from claiming that their dismissals were unfair.

• expand

  Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and others v Harrod and others [2017] IRLR 539 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Indirect age discrimination: compulsory retirement of police officers was justified

    Date:

    30 March 2017

    The Court of Appeal has held that the decision to reduce officer head count "to the fullest extent" by forcibly retiring police officers with 30 years' service was justified.

• expand

  Compass Group PLC v Ayodele [2011] IRLR 802 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Statutory retirement procedure: employers must consider requests not to retire "in good faith"

    Date:

    18 July 2011

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer that follows the procedural requirements of the repealed statutory retirement procedure, but refuses to countenance the possibility that a request not to retire might be granted, can be in breach of the statutory retirement procedure. 

• expand

  Dormers Wells Infant School v Gill EAT/596/97 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • In court 1999

    Date:

    1 January 2000

    Our 10th annual round-up of court and tribunal cases concerning pensions and retirement issues encompasses 38 judgments. Last year saw some important decisions, but fewer cases overall than in recent years.

  • Exclusions and qualifications: Tribunal erred in deciding whether or not employee was too old

    Date:

    1 October 1999

    In Dormers Wells Infant School v Gill, the EAT holds that a representation made to an employee that he would remain in employment until his partner retired, and/or the fact that other employees worked beyond the age of 65, was not sufficient to found an employment tribunal's jurisdiction to hear his complaint of unfair dismissal.

• expand

  Dziubak v LX Engineering (North) Ltd ET/1801304/2014 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Age discrimination: project manager approaching 65 made redundant

    Date:

    25 July 2015

    In finding that an older project manager was chosen for redundancy because of his age, this employment tribunal highlighted evidence of comments from the managing director that it was time for him to retire.

• expand

  Harrod and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and others ET/1307406/2011 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Forced retirement of police officers after 30 years is age discrimination

    Date:

    4 March 2014

    The employment tribunal held that the practice of requiring the retirement of officers under reg.A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

• expand

  Hoggarth v G4S Utility Services (UK) Ltd ET/2507126/09 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employer's failure to propose retirement meeting made dismissal automatically unfair

    Date:

    27 April 2010

    This case is a stark reminder to employers of the dangers of neglecting to follow any aspects of the prescribed "duty to consider" procedure when an employee is being retired by the employer.