The full text judgment is available free of charge on the Court Service/Court of Appeal website .
Representation:
Robin Allen QC, Rachel Crasnow and Paul Troop (instructed by Charles Russell and Islaington Law Centre) appeared for Mr Rutherford
David Pannick QC, , Melanie Hall QC and Kassie Smith instructed by Treasury Solicitor appeared for Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
Authority for the proposition that:-
- in non-lawyer language:
the provisions of British law under which an employee aged 65 or more at date of dismissal cannot (normally) claim unfair dismissal or statutory redundancy pay do not indirectly discriminate against male employees and are thus not contrary to European law and are enforceable.
- in lawyer speak:
the relevant pool of employees for the purposes of determining whether there is indirect discrimination as a result of disparate (or disproportionate) adverse impact of the age-related provision contained in Employment Rights Act 1996 s.109(1)(b), ERA 1996 , ERA 1996 s.156(1)(b), ERA 1996 s.119(4) and ERA 1996 s.162(4) is the entire workforce to which the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay requirement of being under 65 applies. The pool is not a subset of the workforce comprising only older persons who might be disadvantaged by the 65 years age limit.
editor's note:
Subsequently the House of Lords unanimously dismissed an appeal by the employees (see Rutherford v DTI (Secy of State) HL 2006 UKHL 19 on 3rd May 2006, reported at [2006] ICR 785).
For main relevant notes see Age discrimination/a general note and/or Unfair dismissal/age limits and/or Redundancy/age limits .
FINISH>
updated May2006