“Supreme Court allows mandatory retirement if properly justified and proportionate”
Leslie Seldon was a partner at Clarkson Wright & Jakes solicitors who was compulsorily retired at age 65 under the firm's partnership agreement. He claimed this constituted direct age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. The firm argued the retirement age was justified for legitimate business reasons including succession planning and creating opportunities for associates.
Whether a mandatory retirement age of 65 for a solicitor partner constituted unjustified direct age discrimination contrary to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
The Supreme Court held that mandatory retirement at 65 could be objectively justified if it pursued legitimate aims through proportionate means. The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal to determine whether the specific retirement policy was justified on the facts.
This case clarified the test for justifying mandatory retirement ages in UK employment law and established important precedents for when direct age discrimination can be defended as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.
You're reading the free summary of Seldon v Clarkson Wright. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16, [2012] 3 All ER 1301
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.