An Employment Tribunal has found that a leading Leeds law firm, Walker Morris LLP, unlawfully discriminated against a senior partner by forcing him out of the business pursuant to the firm’s mandatory retirement policy.
The Claimant, Martin Scott, had served Walker Morris for many years as a partner and head of the firm’s construction and engineering department. In 2020, he was required to apply for an exceptional extension to remain at the firm beyond age 60 (which was granted on the grounds that he had made an “exceptional contribution”). In 2023, aged 63, he was forced to leave the firm because of his age (the firm having refused a further extension application).
Following a trial in Leeds in December 2024, the Employment Tribunal unanimously concluded that the firm had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Scott because of his age in violation of the Equality Act 2010. While direct discrimination on grounds of age can in relatively narrow circumstances be justified, the Tribunal found that Walker Morris had failed to produce evidence to show that its restrictive approach was reasonably necessary, and concluded that there were several less discriminatory alternatives available to the firm. The Tribunal found specifically that Walker Morris’ approach was underpinned by “discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners” which were “not supported by any documentary or objective evidence”.
The judgment will be of interest to law firms and other professional service firms across the UK, especially those which maintain mandatory retirement policies requiring or presumptively requiring partners to retire at a certain age. It reflects the current position in age discrimination law, following on from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, handed down more than a decade ago.
Hugh Tomlinson KC and Darryl Hutcheon represent Mr Scott.
See the full judgment here.