Update on the ‘Heyday case' – The High Court upholds the default retirement age of 65

12 October 2009

The Queen on the application of Age UK v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills (case No: CO/4585/06) or the 'Heyday case' as it is more commonly known started in 2006, short after the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations came into force. The latter regulation implemented the November 2000 European Directive outlawing age discrimination in employment and vocational training. However, the UK Government restricted the protection available to people over the age of 65 by creating a new 'default retirement age' of 65 for both men and women. This permits employers to set a 'mandatory retirement age' at or above the age of 65. Employers will only be able to justify forced retirement under the age of 65 in exceptional circumstances.

The charity Age Concern argued that the Age Regulations had improperly implemented the EU’s 2000 Equal Treatment Directive by including a national default retirement age applicable to all UK workers and therefore challenged mandatory retirement ages.
The High Court needed clarification on how the EU Directive should be interpreted and so made an order referring five questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In March 2009, the ECJ judged that the DRA fell within the scope of the EC Equal Treatment framework Directive (No.2000/78) when justified as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate social policy objective related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training.

The case returned to the High Court and a ruling on the case was made on 25 September 2009. The challenge to the Regulations had to be judged as at the date it was begun in 2006. The judges of the High Court concluded that the setting of the DRA at 65 was within the competence of the Government in implementing the Directive, in other words lawful when it was first introduced.

Further information

EHRC article – Age Regulations legal challenge (‘the Heyday case’)
BBC article - UK retirement age challenge fails 

Copy of the judgment for download (PDF, 304KB)
Age Concern website