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’.