Rutherford case in House of Lords

House of Lords Dismisses Rutherford Appeal
3 May 2006
The House of Lords has, today, dismissed Mr Rutherford's appeal in
Rutherford v DTI (previously Harvest Town Circle).
Mr Rutherford was over 65. He wanted to claim unfair dismissal,
but was prevented by ERA 1996, s109 (the upper qualifying age). He
argued that the upper qualifying age had an adverse impact on a
higher proportion of men than women, as more men wanted to work
beyond 65, and was therefore indirectly discriminatory and
contrary to EU Article 141.
In five different speeches, the Lords held that Mr Rutherford had
used the wrong statistics, and that the statistics he had produced
did not support a finding of adverse impact. As Lord Walker
acknowledged, the five diferent opinions do not yield an obvious
legal principle to enable an easy summary of the case.
The appeal was dismissed, and the upper qualifying age is
confirmed to be lawful. Hundreds of claims brought by the
over-65s, all stayed by tribunals, will now be dismissed.
Just as a note, from October 2006 (when age discrimination laws
come into force), the upper qualifying age disappears, and those
over retirement age will be free to claim unfair dismissal.
 
Daily Law Notes Report Summary of the same case:
Discrimination - Over 65's
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford (No 2);
Same v Bentley [2006] UKHL 19
HL
3 May 2006
House of Lords Judgment
There was no sex discrimination within art 141 of the EC Treaty
where statutory provisions denying the right to compensation for
unfair dismissal and redundancy pay to those over 65 applied to
the same proportion of women still in employment after that age as
of men.