Loxley v BAE Systems Land Systems (Munitions and Ordnance) Ltd: EAT 29 Jul 2008

The claimant was excluded by the terms of a voluntary redundancy scheme because he had reached the age of 60. There were tapering provisions in place between the ages of 57-60. When the scheme was originally introduced it was compulsory to retire at 60, but later the retirement age was changed to 65. The scheme was not amended in the light of that. The claimant submitted that the scheme directly discriminated against him on grounds of age discrimination. The ET rejected his claim.
The EAT upheld the appeal and held that there was no adequate analysis of the aims of the scheme nor the issue of proportionality. The case was remitted to a fresh tribunal.
‘the fact that an agreement is made with the trade unions is potentially a relevant consideration when determining whether treatment is proportionate. The decision of the ECJ in the case of Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Services SA [2007] IRLR 989 strongly supports that proposition. The Court recognised that one of the considerations that could properly weigh in the assessment of whether compulsory retirement was justified was that the rules in question had been collectively agreed. . . Plainly the imprimatur of the trade union does not render an otherwise unlawful scheme lawful, but any tribunal will rightly attach some significance to the fact that the collective parties have agreed a scheme which they consider to be fair.’


[2008] UKEAT 0156 – 08 – 2907, [2008] ICR 1347



Cited by:

CitedRolls Royce Plc v Unite the Union QBD 17-Oct-2008
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 . .
CitedRolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271327