In last year’s case Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (a partnership) [2012] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court backed an employment tribunal and held that a law firm had identified legitimate aims (i.e. staff retention, workforce planning and limiting the need to expel underperforming partners) which could potentially justify the law firm’s retirement policy and its subsequent compulsory retirement of a partner at the age of 65. Full details are here.
However, the Supreme Court remitted the case back to the employment tribunal to consider whether the choice of a compulsory age of 65 (rather than 68 or 70) was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of the partnership.
The employment tribunal held last week that a compulsory retirement age of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of workforce planning and retention of staff in these particular circumstances. The compulsory retirement provisions in the partnership deed were therefore objectively justified for the purposes of age discrimination.
Partnerships should note that the tribunal judge made the point of saying at the end of his judgment that “the position might be different” if Mr Seldon had been asked to leave the firm after the abolition of the default retirement age and the planned changes to the state pension age.
