Media centre

A landmark victory today in the Court of Appeal means that older workers ejected from their jobs by their employers because of their age can appeal against the decision, but the right to work past retirement age is still uncertain.

Mrs Johns was forced to retire by her employer in March 2007 but challenged the decision and won the right for her case to be put on hold until the law is clarified. Her employer brought the case to the Court of Appeal to reverse this decision, but has lost.

After only a few minutes deliberation, the Court of Appeal judges found in favour of Mrs Johns without even hearing the submission of her barrister.

This means older workers forced to retire will continue to have their Employment Tribunal Appeal cases put on hold pending the outcome of a legal challenge to the UK Age Regulations. If this ‘Heyday’ case wins, people forced to retire will be able to claim compensation for age discrimination and unfair dismissal. However many will still feel this cannot make up for being forced out of work for no reason other than their age.

The case of Johns v Solent SD is important for everyone who has brought a case on forced retirement since October 2006. After Mrs Johns won her Employment Appeals Tribunal, the President of the Employment Tribunals ordered all similar cases to be put on hold until the outcome of the 'Heyday' legal challenge to the UK Age Regulations.

The ‘Heyday’ case against the Government has been brought as a judicial review in the High Court by the National Council on Ageing, which operates under the names Age Concern and Heyday. It argues that the UK Government has improperly implemented the EU directive upon which the Age Regulations were based. The challenge at the High Court has been referred to the European Court of Justice where there will be a hearing on 2 July 2008. The court is expected to publish its judgement before the end of the year.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal said that it was right for Mrs Johns' case to be put on hold because the decision about the Heyday case could not be predicted, and that there are clear differences between the Heyday case and a similar legal action brought in Spain known as the Palacios case.

If the Court of Appeal had ruled against Mrs Johns and struck out her case, it would have been a disaster for people being forced to retire. They would have no legal redress and therefore no possibility of compensation even if the Heyday case eventually succeeds.

Ailsa Ogilvie, director of Heyday, said:
“The 1.2million people in the UK working beyond retirement age do so only at the grace of their employer. Your right to work ends at 65 because of the default retirement age.

“It is absurd to think that as soon as you turn 65, the knowledge and skills that you’ve built up over the years are no longer valued and needed. Our right to work should not be based on our birth certificates, but on skills and motivation. 

“The Government’s decision to allow employers to sack people at 65 completely contradicts its stated aim of encouraging longer working lives."

ENDS

For general enquiries please contact us.

Journalists contact:

Media contact:
Zena Ambrose
Telephone:
020 8765 7512
Out of office hours:
07071 243 243
Email:
Media@ace.org.uk