The normal retiring age for an employee is to be found by looking exclusively at the conditions of employment applicable to the group of employees holding his position.
Lord Salmon said: ‘If a woman’s conditions of employment provide that her retiring age shall be 65, I can find no sensible or just excuse nor any words in paragraph 10(b) to deprive her of her rights to compensation should she be unfairly dismissed by her employers after she reaches the age of 60 but before she attains the age of 65. Before the unfair dismissal she would probably have planned and arranged her life on the basis that she would continue in her employment until she retired. To be unfairly dismissed before that time, say when she was 61 years old, must surely be a cruel blow. Her plans for her future would be overturned. The chance of finding fresh employment would be minimal and her pension would probably be diminished.’
References: [1978] 1 WLR 220, [1979] 1 All ER 142, [1978] ICR 336
Judges: Lord Salmon
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Appeal from – Notham v London Borough of Barnet CA 1978
The purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes will ‘promote the general legislative purpose underlying the provisions’ . .
([1978] 1 All ER 1243)
This case is cited by:
- Corrected – Waite v Government Communications Headquarters HL 21-Jul-1983
Colonel Waite had obtained employment with the civil service in 1967 under the Civil Service Code’s relevant terms and conditions which provided for a retirement age of 60. Although the employers could defer retirement under these terms and . .
([1983] 2 AC 714, , [1983] UKHL 7) - Cited – Todd v British Midland Airways CA 2-Jan-1978
The court discussed the test to be applied to an employment to see whether a British court had jurisdiction over it: ‘But in other cases there is more difficulty. I refer particularly to the type of case we have here of the airline pilot. He is . .
([1978] ICR 959) - Cited – Crofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others CA 19-May-2005
The claimants were airline pilots employed by the respondent company with headquarters in Hong Kong. The court was asked whether an English Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their complaints of unfair dismissal.
Held: The pilots were employed . .
(, [2005] EWCA Civ 599, Times 02-Jun-05, [2005] ICR 1436, [2005] IRLR 624) - See Also – Nothman v Barnet London Borough County Council (No 2) CA 1980
Ormrod, LJ discussed the making of an order for re-instatement after an unfair dismissal finding, saying: ‘Miss Nothman has mentioned in her proposed Notice of Appeal (and from time to time touched on it in this Court) what she believes to be the . .
([1980] IRLR 65)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190503
