Johns v Solent SD Limited UKEAT/0449/07; [2008] IRLR 88 | Practical Law

Johns v Solent SD Limited UKEAT/0449/07; [2008] IRLR 88 | Practical Law

The EAT in Johns v Solent SD Ltd UKEAT/0449/07 has overturned the tribunal's decision to strike out rather than stay an age discrimination claim brought by an employee who had been dismissed by reason of retirement. The employee had argued that regulation 30 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, which provides an employer with a defence to an age discrimination claim where the reason for dismissal is retirement, is contrary to EC law and therefore void. The tribunal had taken the view that the Heyday judicial review case (which seeks the quashing of regulation 30 and is currently before the ECJ) was unlikely to succeed and that the employee's case therefore had no reasonable prospects of success. The EAT held that the tribunal should not have prejudged the Heyday case and, in view of the prejudice to the employee if her claim were to be struck out, should have stayed the claim pending the outcome of Heyday.

Johns v Solent SD Limited UKEAT/0449/07; [2008] IRLR 88

Practical Law Resource ID 8-379-6969 (Approx. 2 pages)

Johns v Solent SD Limited UKEAT/0449/07; [2008] IRLR 88

Published on 30 Oct 2007England, Scotland, Wales
The EAT in Johns v Solent SD Ltd UKEAT/0449/07 has overturned the tribunal's decision to strike out rather than stay an age discrimination claim brought by an employee who had been dismissed by reason of retirement. The employee had argued that regulation 30 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, which provides an employer with a defence to an age discrimination claim where the reason for dismissal is retirement, is contrary to EC law and therefore void. The tribunal had taken the view that the Heyday judicial review case (which seeks the quashing of regulation 30 and is currently before the ECJ) was unlikely to succeed and that the employee's case therefore had no reasonable prospects of success. The EAT held that the tribunal should not have prejudged the Heyday case and, in view of the prejudice to the employee if her claim were to be struck out, should have stayed the claim pending the outcome of Heyday.