Representation (in both the EAT and the Court of Appeal):

• an employee's pre-transfer normal retiring age does not transfer to a new employer by virtue of the TUPE regulations along with contractual rights which do so transfer; and
  
• the law which allows an employer to set a normal retiring age after which dismissal will not be unfair cannot be easily circumvented; and
  
• while budgetary considerations cannot be the sole justification for failing to give effect to the principle of equal pay they can be taken into account to be weighed with other considerations to justify a policy which is indirectly sex discriminatory

editor's note:
In May 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the EAT decision noted below (Cross & Gibson v British Airways plc [2006] EWCA Civ 549 on 11th May 2006)).

go to next updated reference in this note.

For relevant general notes see Transfer of business or undertaking/effect of the TUPE regs and/or Definitions and interpretation/normal retiring age and/or Sex discrimination/defence of justification .