Guidance on age discrimination legislation is at last coming through thick and fast. Only a week after I reported on a case where a tribunal found a partner could be forced to retire, the focus has now changed to compulsory retirement of Recorders (i.e. Part time Judges).
As mentioned in my blog last week on old partners and the issue of retirement, in the case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes, it was held that the compulsory retirement of a partner was objectively justified.
The main justification being that a firm needed to offer advancement to solicitors who wanted to process to partnership. Now in the recently decided tribunal case of Hampton v Ministry of Justice, the tribunal has held that the compulsory retirement of a Recorder was not objectively justified. The tribunal rejected the argument that the Ministry of Justice needed to retire Recorders to introduce new blood to the judiciary and provide sufficient experience to younger Recorders. The tribunal took into consideration the fact that a plan was in place to reduce the number of Recorders, and that other methods such as Recorders sitting for the minimum number of days would allow for further vacancies in the judiciary. As there were other methods of getting ‘fresh blood’ into the judiciary, compulsory retirement could not be justified.
These two conflicting cases, both decided by the Employment Tribunals and both of which we understand may be appealed, show that the application of age discrimination legislation in retirement circumstances will depend heavily on the facts. What however we need is some guidance from the EAT on this point.
Which profession’s retirement ages will be next to come under the scrutiny of the Tribunals is anyone’s guess……..