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

The EAT upholds an Employment Tribunal decision that that an employer should consider a request to work beyond retirement “in good faith”.

Claimant loses age discrimination claim which was based on the premise that the whole of the advertising industry is ageist.

This case concerned the statutory right to request to stay on beyond retire age and in particular paragraphs 2 and 5 of Schedule 6 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.

The EAT finds that a retirement notice stating the employee would retire "after his 65th birthday" complied with s98ZG of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and under Regulation 30 it was not unlawful age discrimination.

Mrs Harper wins nearly £150,000 in age discrimination claim.

This is the sort of claim that employers may face when they no longer have the protection of being able to retire employees under the default retirement age exemption, which is being phased out from 6 April 2011.

An employment tribunal holds that the duty to consider procedure in the Age Regulations requires an employer to genuinely consider an employee's request to work beyond retirement.

The Advocate General has given an opinion that a German law setting down minimum periods of notice, but which excludes all time worked before the age of 25, is incompatible with EU law.

A former Council employee is successful in possibly the highest value age discrimination claim to date