This is the second EAT decision in the well known and long running case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes.

The case reached the ETEATCourt of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court, before being returned to the ET (summaries of these decision are available by following the links). Mr Seldon appealed the second ET decision so his case was heard again by the EAT.


The EAT dismissed Mr Seldon's appeal.

The EAT held that the ET had given itself an impeccable self-direction in law and was entitled to reach its conclusion on the evidence before it.

The EAT noted that if Mr Seldon’s argument in relation to selection of a particular retirement age were correct, no retirement age could ever be justified. Any selected retirement age plus a day would always be less discriminatory than the selected retirement age. The selected retirement age would not be the least discriminatory means of achieving the aims. The EAT accordingly rejected Mr Seldon's argument.

The EAT held that the proper analysis was to consider whether the chosen retirement age was reasonably necessary to achieve the aims, given the realities of setting a date. The EAT held that the ET had applied the correct test and that its conclusion was unimpeachable.

The judgment is available here

Mr L J Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, EAT/0434/13/RN