We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The second case involves an allegation of indirect age
discrimination. In HM Land Registry v Benson employees of the Land
Registry applied for early retirement as part of a voluntary
redundancy programme. If the Land Registry had allowed all of the
applications to proceed, they would have cost the employer an
additional Ł12 million which they had not budgeted for as
part of the redundancy programme. The Land Registry therefore
decided which applications to accept on the basis of which were
cheapest to implement. This had a disproportionate effect on older
workers, as they were more likely to be the most expensive
applications and therefore not accepted. In turn, the employees
claimed age discrimination.
The Land Registry argued that the age discrimination was
justified because it was intended to meet the employer's
legitimate aim of reducing the headcount within budget. The
Tribunal accepted that this was a legitimate aim and found that the
Land Registry's response was proportionate (and therefore
justified) because there was no real alternative for the Land
Registry (although it noted that this might be different in other
circumstances).
The case is a helpful one from the perspective of employers as
it recognises the fact that cost will often be a driver behind
their decisions. However, it should be noted that there remains
conflicting case law on the question of whether discrimination can
be justified on the basis of cost alone, and each decision will
therefore need to be assessed on its own facts.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The High Court and, most recently, Court of Appeal decisions in the "banker bonus" litigation stemming out of the Commerzbank/Dresdner merger in 2008 have received extensive media coverage.
In October 2012, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Service Provision Change ("SPC") TUPE transfer can only occur where the client who receives the service, before and after the change, remains the same (Hunter v McCarrick [2012] EWCA Civ 1399).
Following much debate, on 24 April 2013 the House of Lords finally gave its approval to employee shareholder status which will now take effect from Autumn 2013.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
