Law firms cannot rely on a default retirement age of 65 for partners, solicitors warned this week, following a part-time judge's landmark victory in an age discrimination case against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).


The case contrasts with a ruling last year, where a Kent law firm succeeded in persuading an employment tribunal that a compulsory retirement age of 65 was necessary to develop the firm (see [2008] Gazette, 17 January, 1).



Solicitors said the judgment shows how unpredictable age discrimination cases will be until they 'bed down'.



Paul Hampton, 66, was forced to retire in line with the MoJ's policy of compulsorily retiring recorders at 65 to allow for new appointments. The policy was adopted over recent years to help recruit fresh blood and boost diversity within the judiciary.



However, the employment tribunal has recently ruled that the MoJ breached 2006 employment laws which make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of age, except as a ?'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.



Citing the relatively large pool of appointees, the tribunal said the MoJ should consider other measures, including removing recorders who fail to sit for the minimum number of days.



Fox Lawyers employment partner Ronnie Fox said: 'Firms cannot rely on the default retirement age of 65 that applies to employees [for partners]. Whatever retirement age is chosen, a firm has to be prepared to justify that age.'



Richard Fox, chairman of the Employment Lawyers Association tribunal monitoring group, said: 'All of these cases are inevitably going to turn on their own facts, but it does go to show how unpredictable age discrimination cases are going to be before they bed down.'



An MoJ spokeswoman said it is still the policy that recorders retire at 65, but this may be reviewed. She said it may appeal the judgement.



Anita Rice