amwell_dogherty The claimant had secretly recorded the disciplinary hearings and also the deliberations of the disciplinary panel after their retirement. The tribunal had at a case management hearing admitted the recordings as evidence, and the defendant appealed, saying also that it had been disclosed too late. Held: The evidence contained in the recordings was relevant … Continue reading Amwell View School v Dogherty: EAT 15 Sep 2006
Age Concern challenged the implimentation of the European Directive as regards the prohibition of age discrimination. Judges: David J Citations: [2007] EWHC 3090 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Council Directive of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2000/78/EC), Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 1031 No 2006) Jurisdiction: … Continue reading The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Aging (Age Concern England), Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: Admn 24 Jul 2007
The company had entered into collective agreements with the union governing criteria and procedures for redundancy selection. The company said that the criteria were not compliant with the age discrimination regulations. Held: The union was correct and the agreement was compliant. Judges: Morison J Citations: [2008] EWHC 2420 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Equality (Age) … Continue reading Rolls Royce Plc v Unite the Union: QBD 17 Oct 2008
The company appealed against a finding as to its compliance with the 2006 Regulations in the notices given to the respondent as to her retirement. Judges: Ward, McFarlane LJJ, Dame Janet Smith Citations: [2012] EWCA Civ 410 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment, Discrimination Updated: 06 October 2022; … Continue reading R and R Plant (Peterborough) Ltd v Bailey: CA 2 Apr 2012
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim of age discrimination. the claimant complained that the trust had deliberately failed to comply with a requirement to consult before declaring him to be redundant, so that his employment would cease before he reached the age which would trigger a higher severance payment. The tribunal and EAT … Continue reading Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust: CA 22 Mar 2012
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsThe Tribunal erred in law in holding that words spoken at a meeting by the Claimant did not amount to information for the purposes of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management v Geduld [2010] ICR 125 applied.The Tribunal … Continue reading Freeman v Ultra Green Group Ltd: EAT 9 Aug 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Retirement UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction Employee reaching retirement age requests extension – Employer purports to follow procedure under Schedule 6 of Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and rejects request – Tribunal holds, on basis of admissions from employer’s witnesses, that the managers in question regarded themselves as absolutely bound by … Continue reading Compass Group Plc v Ayodele: EAT 14 Jul 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALAGE DISCRIMINATIONThe appeal concerned the statutory right to request not to retire and in particular paragraphs 2 and 5 of Schedule 6 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (now repealed).Held:(1) In order to comply with paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 6 an employer was required to inform an employee in writing of the … Continue reading Bailey v R and R Plant (Peterborough) Ltd: EAT 18 May 2011
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination The issue was whether a complaint was out of time. An Employment Judge who was asked to rule on whether a complaint of the receipt of lower pay than those in a comparable position but for their age had been made … Continue reading Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v Power and Others: EAT 24 Feb 2011
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATIONContractual redundancy scheme incorporating a cap preventing employees recovering more than they would have earned if they had remained in employment until retirement age – Cap applied to Claimant, reducing the amount that he would otherwise have received by some andpound;14,000 – Tribunal holds that cap disproportionately applied to those approaching retiring age … Continue reading Kraft Foods Uk Ltd v Hastie: EAT 6 Jul 2010
The BMA sought judicial review of the decision of the GMC to withdraw a concession to practitioners above the national retirement age forgiving them annual registration fees. Held: The policy had become unlawful with the anti-age discrimination regulations. There could be no legitimate expectation that an unlawful policy would continue. Judges: Burnett J Citations: [2008] … Continue reading British Medical Association, Regina (on the Application of) v General Medical Council: Admn 3 Oct 2008
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Exclusions/jurisdictions Was the Claimant ‘ordinarily resident in Great Britain’ for the purposes of section 68(2A)(c) Disability Discrimination Act and regulation 10(2)(c) Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, so as to found jurisdiction to determine his complaints of disability and age discrimination? Employment Tribunal’s decision that he was not was upheld on the … Continue reading Neary v Service Children’s Education and Others: EAT 17 Jun 2010
The claimant alleged indirect age discrimination, in not having received a promotion to a post of legal adviser to the defendant. He did not have a law degree and did not want to undertake the study required which would have him acquiring the degree only after retirement. The EAT had allowed the employer’s appeal finding … Continue reading Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police: CA 27 Apr 2010
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATIONThe Council operated a scheme rewarding loyalty and experience under which employees were paid increments if they satisfied both a length-of-service and an age criterion. The scheme was terminated with effect from 1.4.07, but employees already in receipt of increment were allowed to retain it by way of ‘pay protection’. The Claimant sought … Continue reading Pulham and Others v London Borough Of Barking and Dagenham: EAT 28 Oct 2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neitherWhether an accountant was a partner or employee in circumstances where a former partnership traded through limited companies under the terms of a Shareholders Agreement, itself said not to constitute a partnership.On the particular facts the Employment Tribunal were entitled to find that he was a partner and not … Continue reading Train v DTE Business Advisory Services Ltd and Associated Co (T/A DTE Chartered Accountants) and others: EAT 6 Jan 2009
Europa Council Directive 2000/78/EC Article 6(1) Age discrimination – Compulsory retirement National legislation permitting employers to dismiss employees aged 65 and over if the reason of dismissal is retirement Justification. Citations: C-388/07, [2008] EUECJ C-388/07 – O Links: Bailii Statutes: Council Directive 2000/78/EC, Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 1031 No 2006) Citing: At First … Continue reading Incorporated Trustees of The National Council For Ageing v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: ECJ 23 Sep 2008
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Retirement The Tribunal addressed the fairness of a ‘retirement’ dismissal under ordinary unfair dismissal principles pursuant to section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and failed to consider whether or not there was compliance with the continuing notification duty in paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations … Continue reading Evbenata v South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust (Unfair Dismissal: Retirement): EAT 28 Oct 2014
The company appealed against a finding that it was guilty of age discrimination in ending a consultany arrangement with the respondent who ws 73 years old. Longmore, Jackson, Underhill LJJ [2015] EWCA Civ 439, [2015] WLR(D) 197, [2015] IRLR 562, [2015] ICR 1010 Bailii, WLRD Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, EU Council Directive 2000/78/EC England … Continue reading CLFIS (UK) Ltd v Reynolds: CA 30 Apr 2015
EAT Age Discrimination : AGE RELATED DISMISSALThe Claimant was dismissed at age 65 consistently with the employer’s retirement policy. The Employment Tribunal found that he had been given proper notice of retirement and of the right to request that he be kept on for a further period. Such a request had been properly considered and … Continue reading Tajul-Arfeen v Health Protection Agency: EAT 29 May 2013
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair reasons Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason The reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was retirement. The Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the Claimant’s claim of age discrimination failed by application of Regulation 30 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 when the 2006 regulations had been … Continue reading Copeland v E Coomes (Holdings) Ltd (Age Discrimination): EAT 13 Jun 2013
The court was asked whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claims of age discrimination brought by the appellant’s employees, based in Hong Kong, but working as crew on flights between there and London. Held: The appeal failed: ‘There was no error of law in the ET’s ruling that Ms Mak did ‘her work … Continue reading British Airways Plc v Mak and Others: CA 24 Feb 2011
cvs_borghEAT072013 EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION AGE DISCRIMINATION The authorities on the alternative definition of ’employee’ in Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 as a person employed ‘under a contract personally to do any work’ establish that there is a dichotomy between independent providers of services who are … Continue reading CVS Solicitors Llp and Another v Van Der Borgh (Religion or Belief Discrimination): EAT 26 Jul 2013
The claimant solicitor said that the compulsory retirement from his partnership on age grounds was discriminatory, and that the UK Regulations had not implemented the Directive fully. Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of the provision as to allow the progression of younger members of the practice. This aim was recognised by the legislation, and … Continue reading Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership): CA 28 Jul 2010
amnesty_ahmedEAT2009 EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct discriminationRACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect discriminationRACE DISCRIMINATION – Protected by s. 41UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissalClaimant, of (northern) Sudanese ethnic origin, applied for promotion to role of ‘Sudan researcher’ for Amnesty International – Not appointed because Amnesty believed that the appointment of a person of her ethnic origin would compromise … Continue reading Amnesty International v Ahmed: EAT 13 Aug 2009
The appellant had failed in his claim for indirect age discrimination. Approaching retirement, he complained that new conditions allowing advancement to graduates only, discriminated against him since he could not complete a degree before retiring. Held: The appeal succeeded, but the case was remitted to investigate whether the discrimination could be properly justified: ‘Part of … Continue reading Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police: SC 25 Apr 2012
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case had otherwise been effectively settled. Held: With considerable misgivings, the court agreed to hear the appeal. … Continue reading Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union: CA 14 May 2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65. Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social aim of labour market confidence. The use of a designated retirement age … Continue reading Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General: Admn 25 Sep 2009
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATIONUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deductionCouncil employee seconded to registered social landlord – Secondment comes to an end, so that he is formally redundant – Employee aged 49 and would be entitled to an early retirement pension if retained in employment to age 50 – Council fails to find him alternative employment or to … Continue reading London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster: EAT 10 Sep 2009
(Third Chamber) The trustees complained that the respondent had failed to implement the Directive, in that there remained, for example, rules allowing employers to have fixed retirement ages. Held: The complaint failed. The Directive allowed states to provide for certain differences in treatment provided that it could be shown to have an objective and reasonable … Continue reading Incorporated Trustees of The National Council For Ageing v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: ECJ 5 Mar 2009
The appellant claimed that the requirement imposed on him to retire from his law firm partnership on attaining 65 was an unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age. Held: The matter was remitted to the Employment tribunal to see whether the fixing of the mandatory retirment age at 65 was a proportionate means of achieving … Continue reading Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes: SC 25 Apr 2012
The claim of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age was not presented within the time-limit provided for in Regulation 48(1) of the 2006 Regulations. Nevertheless, it is just and equitable within the meaning of Article 48(4) of the 2006 Regulations for the Tribunal to consider the claim. Citations: [2010] NIIT 6947 – 09IT Links: … Continue reading Keery v South Eastern Health and Social Services Trust: NIIT 14 Jun 2010
NIIT Age discrimination is now prohibited, in certain employment situations, by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 (‘the Regulations’).The provisions of the Regulations which are relevant in the present context came into force on 1 October 2006.Article 7(1) of the Regulations makes it unlawful for an employer, in the context of an employment … Continue reading Campbell v Port of Larne, Larne Harbour Ltd: NIIT 16 Jan 2009
EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements. Regulation 14 2004 Regulations; excluding discrimination Questionnaires from definition of statutory grievance. When failure to comply with SGP may be raised. Whether SGP requirement offends European Law.The Regulations cannot be circumvented by contending that the grievance identified in the preamble to the questions can be … Continue reading D Holc-Gale v Makers UK Ltd: EAT 30 Nov 2005