Mandatory Retirement Policies: Scott v Walker Morris LLP [2025]

Mr Scott had worked as a Partner at Walker Morris LLP (“the Firm”), and its predecessor firms since 1992, an Equity Partner since 1997 and a full Equity Partner since 2003. Since 1997, the terms of his employment was governed by a Members’ Agreement.

The Firm had a retirement policy which stated: “Each member shall retire on the Accounting Date next following his or her sixtieth birthday unless he or she is requested by the Members and agreed to remain as a Member for such period as may be agreed by the Members”.

The policy did however allow for an extension of up to three years if the Partner could demonstrate “exceptional contribution” to the Firm.

The policy also contained compulsory retirement provisions which gave the Firm the right to give six months’ notice to a partner requiring them to retire from the partnership, at any time and for any reason, although a reason didn’t need to be given. For this provision to apply, 75% of the partners had to agree before notice was given.

As he was approaching 60 in August 2019, in February 2019, Mr Scott applied to extend his retirement age from 60 to 65 so that he could work until 30 April 2025, which would have been the end of the financial year following his 65^th birthday in August 2024.

Mr Scott’s application was refused, but he was granted a three-year extension to his partnership until 30 April 2023.

On 7 January 2023, Mr Scott made a second application to extend his partnership by a further two years.

On 14 March 2023 Mr Scott was notified that his application had been refused by the Board and the Members. As such, he was he retired at the age of 63 with effect from 30 April 2023.

In September 2023, Mr Scott issued a claim for direct and indirect age discrimination.

Employment Tribunal Decision

An employer can defend an age discrimination claim if they can show that the treatment complained of, is objectively justified. This means they must show that there is a legitimate aim (such a business or safety need), and that the action is proportionate, appropriate, and necessary in achieving that aim.

In this case, the Firm argued that the retirement policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, the Tribunal didn’t hear any evidence to suggest that older partners were blocking younger members of staff from progressing. On the contrary, there was evidence to suggest that the Firm was recruiting partners from other firms.

Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal unanimously held that the Firm had discriminated against Mr Scott because of his age with respect to the following:

1. When the Board refused his application to extend his partnership and delay his retirement;
2. When the Membership also refused the same application; and
3. When the Firm terminated his membership of the partnership on 30 April 2023.

The Tribunal commented that there were a number of less discriminatory alternatives that the Firm could have adopted. For example, the Firm “could have used career conversations with partners and staff to identify what their short term and long-term career goals were,” it could have adopted a policy “requiring partners to hand over equity and influence whilst retaining their partner tag” or could have used incentivised retirement.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the Firm’s actions were not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

This case underscores the importance of employers thoroughly assessing their retirement policies. While mandatory retirement ages are not automatically unlawful, they must be supported by clear, robust evidence that objectively justifies the approach. Broad justifications are not enough; employers must prove that their policy is both necessary and proportionate.

Organisations with compulsory retirement ages should regularly review both their policy, and the evidence underpinning it.

For further information or to discuss a potential employment law or discrimination claim, please contact our specialist employment solicitors on 0207 3950 5234 or info@rllaw.co.uk. We are ranked as a ‘Leading Firm’ in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners independent guides to the UK Legal Profession.

11 April 2025.