The recent claim by Mr Seldon against his former partners in the solicitors firm Clarkson Wright and Jakes, has once again come before the court. The lessons learned are rather mixed.
Background
Last year the Supreme Court decided that the firm could rely upon any one of three potentially legitimate aims in order to seek to justify his dismissal despite the fact that it was related to a clause requiring mandatory retirement at the age of 65. These were
ensuring that associates were given the opportunity of partnership after a reasonable period, thereby ensuring that they did not leave the firm;
facilitating the planning of the partnership and workforce across individual departments by having a realistic long term expectation as to when vacancies would arise; and
limiting the need to expel partners by way of performance management, thus contributing to a congenial and supportive culture in the firm.
However, the Supreme Court then remitted his claim back to the employment tribunal in order that a tribunal could consider whether the use of a mandatory retirement age of 65 was the right age to choose when adopting a proportionate means of achieving those legitimate aims.
The decision
On the facts of the case, the employment tribunal found in favour of the firm saying that the retention of younger staff and career planning were legitimate aims, that collegiality was also a legitimate aim and that a mandatory retirement age achieved these three aims. It also decided that the mandatory retirement age of 65 was, on the facts of that case, a proportionate means of achieving those aims. Accordingly, Mr Seldon’s claim failed.
Conclusions
Although the tribunal decided in favour of the firm in that case, it was at pains to point out that the decision was based upon the social policy and demographics which existed in 2006 (which was before the abolition of the national retirement age). It was observed that society’s attitude towards retirement had changed significantly since that date and therefore the tribunal specifically stated that if they had been required to decide the case on the basis of a similar clause in place now, it might well have been decided differently. Therefore, although the clause was upheld on the facts of that case, it is certainly not an authority for saying that a mandatory retirement age of 65 can be justified in other businesses.