The Court of Appeal has upheld an earlier decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that a requirement for a candidate for a job to have a degree was not age discriminatory

The Employment Tribunal rules that a retirement age of 48 for match officials is direct age discrimination.

A German law restricting the minimum periods of notice for those aged under 25 was found to be discriminatory and unjustified. The ECJ also gave further definition to the ruling in Mangold -v- Helm.

The ECJ has given their judgement on a German law restricting applications to the fire service to those under 30.

The ECJ has given their judgement on a German law setting a maximum age limit of 68 for dentists to be accredited to work in the German national health service.

In this case, the British Gurkha Welfare Society (“BGWS”) sought to challenge the pension arrangements put in place for Gurkhas following a government review in December 2006.

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.

Barking and Dagenham Council loses appeal after 15 employees bring age discrimination claim.

The High Court has today given judgment on R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin) – known as the “Heyday” case.

A Scottish employment tribunal has held that an employer did not disadvantage more mature employees by including developmental needs in its selection criteria.

The ECJ rule that an Austrian law which mandated lower pay for younger civil servants not proportionate and therefore not justified under the Framework Directive.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Rolls Royce's appeal against the High Court's decision that use of length of service as a criterion in redundancy selection is lawful.

This case was originally heard by an employment tribunal and its decision delivered in December 2007. An appeal against the tribunal’s decision was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in July 2008.

ECJ confirms that mandatory retirement is not unlawful.

Upper age limit of 35 for recruitment of air traffic controllers held unlawful

The EAT rejects a law firm's claim that it is legitimate to retire partners at 65 as their performance declines at about that age.

A legal adviser, aged 61, ineligible for promotion unless he obtained a law degree was not discriminated against on the grounds of his age.

Lawful use of length of service in redundancy selection criteria.

An employment tribunal rules that an enhanced redundancy scheme which gave greater credit for service over 40 was unlawful as the employer could not identify a legitimate aim for the less favourable treatment of the younger employees.

Sharma v Millbrook Beds Ltd involved an employer whose attempts to reduce the risk of a claim backfired.

This is the first reported age discrimination case dealing with the thorny issue of flexible benefits schemes; in particular the implication of age-related premiums in the private medical insurance component of such a scheme.

The European Court of Justice has decided that national laws on compulsory retirement at a particular age must be justified in order to be lawful.

The Advocate General has given an opinion stating that the compulsory retirement age of 65 in the Age Discrimination Regulations is potentially legal under EU law.

A tribunal has ruled that a law firm did not unlawfully discriminate on age grounds when it reformed its partner pension scheme - even though the extent of partners’ losses depended on their age.

The EAT rules that ICI can potentially justify both age and service elements in their enhanced redundancy scheme.

An age cut-off for redundancy payments can be justified if pension provision adequately cushions the impact of financial loss

A 61 year old teacher who was not shortlisted for a job advertised for candidates ‘in the first five years of their career’ was indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of her age.

The old statutory retirement procedure which, if correctly followed, would protect an employer from unfair dismissal and/or age discrimination claims, only applies to employees.

Cleaner in a Dentist's is successful in her age discrimination claim

In general, employers do not need specifically to justify using length of service to calculate pay, according to the ECJ in Cadman v Health and Safety Executive.

The financial cost to a private employer of avoiding an indirectly discriminatory provision will not, on its own, be a good enough justification.

A German law providing older fixed term workers with fewer legal protections than their younger counterparts was unlawful age discrimination.