This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/8274328.stm

The article has changed 36 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
UK retirement age challenge fails UK retirement age challenge fails
(31 minutes later)
The High Court has ruled that it is legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65.The High Court has ruled that it is legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65.
In the UK, a worker can see their employment end at the age of 65 without any redundancy payment - even if they do not want to retire.In the UK, a worker can see their employment end at the age of 65 without any redundancy payment - even if they do not want to retire.
The case had been brought by Age Concern and Help the Aged which argued that the compulsory retirement age goes against EU regulations. The case had been brought by Age Concern and Help the Aged, which argued that the compulsory retirement age goes against EU regulations.
But their challenge, heard in July, has now been thrown out by the court. The charities will not appeal because they expect a change in the law anyway.
But employers welcomed the ruling.
The court's decision means that a string of compensation cases brought by people who did not want to retire are doomed to fail.
'Compelling case'
Specifically, Mr Justice Blake decided that the Default Retirement Age introduced by the government in 2006 did comply with an EC Directive against age discrimination.Specifically, Mr Justice Blake decided that the Default Retirement Age introduced by the government in 2006 did comply with an EC Directive against age discrimination.
The government has announced it is bringing forward a review of the compulsory retirement age anyway, by a year to 2010. THE STORY SO FAR... In the UK, a worker can see their employment end at the age of 65 without any redundancy payment - even if they do not want to retire.A number of court cases are continuing that challenge this rule, most notably the case spearheaded by Age Concern and Help the Aged which was heard in the High Court in July and which has now been rejected.However, the government has said it will bring forward a review of the retirement age to 2010, a move that some commentators say signals the end of the default retirement age in the UK as we know it.
Current position However, he did say that there was a "compelling case" for a change in the law, and he would have ordered a review.
The government has announced it is bringing forward a review of the compulsory retirement age anyway, by a year to 2010. The charities believe that this will eventually lead to a change in the rules.
As the law stands, a British employer can dismiss a member of staff without redundancy payments on that person's 65th birthday, as long as they stick to the correct procedure. The charities believe this is in breach of the EU's Equal Treatment at Work Directive.As the law stands, a British employer can dismiss a member of staff without redundancy payments on that person's 65th birthday, as long as they stick to the correct procedure. The charities believe this is in breach of the EU's Equal Treatment at Work Directive.
THE STORY SO FAR... In the UK, a worker can see their employment end at the age of 65 without any redundancy payment - even if they do not want to retire.A number of court cases are continuing that challenge this rule, most notably the case spearheaded by Age Concern and Help the Aged which was heard in the High Court in July and which has now been rejectedHowever, the government has said it will bring forward a review of the retirement age to 2010, a move that some commentators say signals the end of the default retirement age in the UK as we know it.
Employees have the right to request to continue working beyond the date when the employer wants them to retire, but the employer can refuse the request and the law does not require them to give any reason for that decision.Employees have the right to request to continue working beyond the date when the employer wants them to retire, but the employer can refuse the request and the law does not require them to give any reason for that decision.
An employer can also refuse to recruit anyone over the age of 65.An employer can also refuse to recruit anyone over the age of 65.
In September 2008, the Advocate General gave recommendations about how European rules should be interpreted.In September 2008, the Advocate General gave recommendations about how European rules should be interpreted.
He said that the enforceable retirement age could remain if it had a "legitimate aim" linked to social or employment policy.He said that the enforceable retirement age could remain if it had a "legitimate aim" linked to social or employment policy.
About 260 cases pending in tribunals are now likely to be dismissed following the High Court's ruling. These pensioners had been seeking compensation for discrimination. More than 260 cases pending in tribunals are now likely to be dismissed following the High Court's ruling. These pensioners had been seeking compensation for discrimination.
The majority of people retire before 65, but 1.3 million people work beyond state pension age. It has been suggested that many more would if their employer permitted it. The majority of people retire before 65, but 1.4 million people work beyond state pension age. It has been suggested that many more would if their employer permitted it.
Reaction
Andrew Harrop, speaking for the charities, said they were "very disappointed" with the decision in the High Court.
However, he claimed that the government's own study into the law should be a fundamental review, as the current situation was unsustainable.
John Wadham, legal group director for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: "The number of older employees is increasing and the law should support those who wish to carry on working and making an economic contribution."
Stephen Alambritis, of the Federation of Small Businesses, said that employees taking cases to tribunals would have been extremely costly to small firms.
"It is important that a default mechanism is put in place to ensure that it does not all end up tears at employment tribunal," he said.