An employee in a unique position within a company could not have a normal retirement age. ‘For [Miss Hines] it was argued that she fell into a category of one, being the only counselling organiser employed by the appellants, and that there were therefore no employees holding the position which she held within the meaning of s.64(1)(b). If this were so, then plainly, in the necessary absence of comparisons with other employees holding the same position, a normal retiring age could not be established and the statutory alternative of 60 would apply.’
Lord McDonald
[1983] IRLR 477
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Dormers Wells Infant School v Gill EAT 16-Jul-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Wrongly decided – Wall v The British Compressed Air Society CA 10-Dec-2003
The applicant was employed as director-general, with his contract stating that his retirement age would be 70. Nobody else had a similar occupation within the organisation, and he said this therefore constituted his ‘normal age’ for retirement, . .
Cited – Patel v Nagesan CA 1995
Mrs Nagesan’s contract specified no retirement age. She was dismissed on attaining 60. The employers disputed the tribunal’s jurisdiction, saying they had written to all employees, including Mrs Nagesan, purporting to introduce a new retiring age of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.190500
