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.

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

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’.

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

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

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.