[2002] ICR 123, EAT (and [2001] IRLR 599 and [2002] IRLR 768)
NOTES

  • Harvest Town Circle Ltd v Rutherford, EAT on 10th July 2001 Case no EAT/1128/99 (reported at [2002] ICR 123, EAT and at [2001] IRLR 599.)
  • Full text of this judgment is available free of charge on the BAILII web-site.

    Representation:

  • Mr David Reade instructed by Messrs Down Solicitors, 156 High Street, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1BQ for Harvest Town Circle Ltd
  • Mr Robin Allen QC and Mr Paul Troopinstructed by Messrs Charles Russell, Solicitors, 8-10 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1RS for Mr Rutherford

    An example of:-
    Editor's note:
    the Stratford East employment tribunal held on 22nd August 2002 after further examination of the statistics that the upper qualifying age limits noted above ARE unlawful in the joined cases of Bentley v Secretary of State for DTI and Rutherford v Harvest Town Circle and Secretary of State for DTI [2002] IRLR 768. This was on the basis that imposition of these age limits has a disparate impact on men and women and amounts to indirect sex discrimation which was not justified by the government.

    The DTI's reaction was to say "We believe this tribunal decision, which related to sex, not age discrimination, should be overturned on appeal". It was - see notes at Rutherford v DTI (Secy of State) CA 2004

    The final position at September 2004 was thus that the upper qualifying age limits set out in ERA 1996 s.109 and ERA 1996 s.156 for unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy pay were not incompatible with EC anti-sex discrimination rules - see notes at Rutherford v DTI (Secy of State) CA 2004 .

    For relevant general notes see Age discrimination/a general note and/or Unfair dismissal/age limits and/or Redundancy/age limits .


    FINISH>
    prepared July2001
    (note on final outcome added Oct 2003)