123:
A prison officer's workplace had a collective agreement which stated over-55s would be retired first on three months' notice. His contract also said ‘no one in the service should be discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, disability or age’. All over-55s
132:
Lord Hope held that there was no age discrimination, because that term was subject to the term providing for three months' notice. There would only be age discrimination if the employer distinguished between over-55s on grounds of age.
165:
244:
422:
412:
158:
354:
218:
151:
286:
230:
314:
258:
417:
342:
181:
80:
72:
68:
328:
204:
372:
112:
300:
192:
290:
234:
406:
383:
368:
108:
53:
358:
332:
318:
304:
276:
248:
208:
84:
76:
143:
136:
Lord Brown-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd, Lord Nolan and Lord
Millett concurred.
147:
124:
were being retired to avoid compulsory redundancies.
90:
64:
59:
49:
41:
33:
25:
20:
159:
8:
166:
152:
144:
17:
272:Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland
104:Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland
21:Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland
259:McClelland v NI General Health Services
245:Société Générale, London Branch v Geys
355:Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital
7:
14:
219:Gunton v Richmond upon Thames LBC
287:Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald Int
231:Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth
423:2000 in United Kingdom case law
413:United Kingdom labour case law
343:Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd
315:Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc
1:
439:
182:Employment Rights Act 1996
365:
351:
339:
325:
311:
297:
283:
267:
255:
241:
227:
215:
201:
189:
179:
95:
174:Wrongful dismissal cases
81:Lord Hope of Craighead
73:Lord Lloyd of Berwick
69:Lord Browne-Wilkinson
418:House of Lords cases
329:Barber v Somerset CC
205:Johnson v Unisys Ltd
373:wrongful dismissal
113:wrongful dismissal
96:Wrongful dismissal
379:
378:
111:case, concerning
100:
99:
45:UKHL 28, ICR 595
430:
273:
168:
161:
154:
145:
60:Court membership
18:
438:
437:
433:
432:
431:
429:
428:
427:
403:
402:
397:
392:
380:
375:
361:
347:
335:
321:
307:
301:Reda v Flag Ltd
293:
279:
271:
263:
251:
237:
223:
211:
197:
193:Wilson v Racher
185:
175:
172:
142:
130:
121:
12:
11:
5:
436:
434:
426:
425:
420:
415:
405:
404:
401:
400:
396:
393:
391:
388:
387:
386:
377:
376:
366:
363:
362:
352:
349:
348:
340:
337:
336:
326:
323:
322:
312:
309:
308:
298:
295:
294:
284:
281:
280:
268:
265:
264:
256:
253:
252:
242:
239:
238:
228:
225:
224:
216:
213:
212:
202:
199:
198:
190:
187:
186:
180:
177:
176:
173:
171:
170:
163:
156:
148:
141:
138:
129:
126:
120:
117:
98:
97:
93:
92:
88:
87:
66:
65:Judges sitting
62:
61:
57:
56:
51:
47:
46:
43:
39:
38:
35:
31:
30:
29:House of Lords
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
435:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
410:
408:
399:
398:
394:
389:
385:
384:UK labour law
382:
381:
374:
370:
369:UK labour law
364:
360:
357:
356:
350:
345:
344:
338:
334:
331:
330:
324:
320:
317:
316:
310:
306:
303:
302:
296:
292:
291:EWCA Civ 1287
289:
288:
282:
278:
275:
274:
266:
261:
260:
254:
250:
247:
246:
240:
236:
233:
232:
226:
221:
220:
214:
210:
207:
206:
200:
195:
194:
188:
183:
178:
169:
164:
162:
157:
155:
150:
149:
146:
139:
137:
134:
127:
125:
118:
116:
114:
110:
109:UK labour law
107:UKHL 28 is a
106:
105:
94:
89:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
67:
63:
58:
55:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
28:
24:
19:
16:
353:
341:
327:
313:
299:
285:
270:
269:
257:
243:
229:
217:
203:
191:
135:
131:
122:
103:
102:
101:
85:Lord Millett
15:
235:EWCA Civ 28
37:11 May 2000
407:Categories
395:References
77:Lord Nolan
50:Transcript
262:1 WLR 594
140:See also
128:Judgment
91:Keywords
54:judgment
42:Citation
359:UKSC 58
333:UKHL 13
319:UKHL 35
305:UKPC 38
277:UKHL 28
249:UKSC 63
222:ICR 755
209:UKHL 13
196:ICR 428
34:Decided
346:Ch 305
390:Notes
119:Facts
26:Court
371:and
367:see
184:s 86
409::
115:.
83:,
79:,
75:,
71:,
167:e
160:t
153:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.