An employment contract provided that employees would not be discriminated against on the grounds (inter alia) of age. The normal retiring age was 55, but the employer allowed employees to continue beyond that age subject to regular review. The employer decided to retire all employees above 55, and the employee claimed this was discriminating on the grounds of age in breach of the contract.
Held: The prohibition against discrimination with which the House concerned in this case is contractual, not statutory. The House ‘the principle that a contract must be taken as a whole. As a general rule each provision must be read in the light of the other provisions of the contract of which it forms part. The object which is sought to be achieved is to ascertain the meaning of the contract which the parties have made to describe their legal relationship. Where the contract is in writing the task is to discover the meaning of the words which they have used in the written contract. This is to be achieved by reading these words not in isolation but as they would be understood in the context which has been provided for them by the whole contract.’ There had been no singling out, and the equal opportunities policy had not displaced the retirement provisions. No dicrimination was found.
Judges:
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett
Citations:
Times 12-May-2000, [2000] UKHL 28
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Contract, Discrimination, Scotland
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159062