Case Law – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes
Last year, we reported on the case of Leslie Seldon who was one of the partners at Clarkson Wright and Jakes in Kent. Together with the other partners, he was required to sign a deed that required him to retire from the firm by the end of December in the year that he turned 65. His employment duly ceased on 31 December 2006.
Mr Seldon brought a claim under the Age Regulations 2006, subsequently replaced by the Equality Act 2010 but covering the same discrimination issues that Seldon believed he had been subject to.
Initially, it was found that setting a default retirement age by way of the deed was legitimate in that:
- The deed that had been signed by the partners ensured that associates in the firm were given the opportunity of progression, thereby ensuring their retention
- This was necessary for succession planning
- The arrangement limited the need to have to expel partners ‘thus contributing to a congenial and supportive culture’
However, the continuing claim by Mr Seldon has been whether these could have been met by setting a retirement age other than 65 – i.e. could the legitimate aims have been met by setting a higher or lower retirement age?
In 2012, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the Employment Tribunal in Ashford, Kent, for them to rule on this issue and whether the age of 65 could be justified. In short, the Tribunal ruled at the end of May 2013 that, in this case, setting the age of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving the aims of the partnership deed. Whilst another age could have been selected, the age of 65 was not inappropriate and not discriminatory.
Comment
The written reasons in Further Information should be read in full and should not be seen by employers as justification to introduce a mandatory retirement age. This case was based upon the factors in 2006, before the abolition of the national retirement age and the start of the changes to the State Pension age. Indeed, the Tribunal acknowledges this fact.
As we have said, Seldon indicates that 65 was justifiable in this particular case and there was a legitimate reason for setting it at this level rather than a higher or lower age.
Further Information
- Payroll Help May 2012 – Legitimate Retirements at 65?
- Employment Tribunal Written Reasons May 2013 – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes
Payroll news | Payroll questions | Employment Law advice from Payroll Help