by Laurie Anstis on May 19, 2011
The Supreme Court is due to have the final say on the case of Clarkson Wright & Jakes -v- Seldon. This case, involving the forced retirement at 65 of a partner in a law firm, is likely to be the most significant authority on the question of an employer justified retirement age, now that there is no longer any default retirement age for employees.
The Court of Appeal seemed to have little difficulty in finding that the retirement in that case was objectively justified, and I had previously suggested that if this remained the law then the abolition of the default retirement age might not be so significant as had previously been assumed.
With that in mind, I was intrigued by this tweet from The Times, suggesting that the Supreme Court themselves were not happy with the forced retirement of one of their number, Lord Collins.
Going behind the paywall, Lord Phillips, the President of the Supreme Court, is quoted as saying:
“We at the Supreme Court bitterly resent his [Lord Collins’s] going. His many qualities have enriched our lives. His outstanding legal knowledge and wisdom has enriched our judgments…and he is an infallible source of advice on which films must not be missed.”
The report also alludes to a “lobbying campaign” by senior judges to lift the retirement age for Supreme Court justices, currently 70.
It will be interesting to see if this experience informs the Supreme Court’s view of compulsory retirement when they come to consider the Seldon case.