An employee who was unfairly dismissed, had not been subjected to age discrimination.

Finding of age discrimination made on basis that witness had lied and that in those circumstances the employer could not, apparently as a matter of law, satisfy the law on the burden of proof.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an Employment Tribunal’s decision that a 42-year-old banker had suffered unlawful age discrimination because of a bank's use of the word "younger".

This case deals with using "age" as a selection criteria in recruitment. The decision itself is well worth a read and contains useful lessons for any employer.

This ET decision deals with the issue of "windfall" payments to employees.

A forty two year old banker was discriminated on the grounds of his age after his employer fired him and sought to replace him with someone with a "younger, entrepreneurial" style.

A change from one policy to another policy cannot in itself be a provision, criterion or practice for the purposes of the Age Regulations.

The EAT found that a manager's dismissal of an employee, based on a belief that the employee held ageist views, did not justify an inference that the employee had been dismissed by reason of his age.

Despite seeking a “dynamic young accountant”, SPG was found not to have discriminated on the grounds of age in their recruitment.

The decision of the Northern Ireland employment tribunal in McCoy v McGregor and Sons Ltd is a cautionary tale for employers who have not eliminated age-related language and questions from their recruitment exercises.

The youngest claimant, in Wilkinson v Springwell Engineering Ltd, was 18 when she was dismissed, ostensibly on grounds of her capability.

Court v Dennis Publishing Ltd involved a claimant dismissed for being too old.

In relation to non-retirement dismissals, the decision in Hussain v Live Nation (Venues) Ltd illustrates the danger for an employer in seeking to play the ‘age card’.