Mr Seldon was a solicitor who was forced to retire from his partnership at age 65. For financial reasons he asked to work beyond retirement age but his request was rejected. He subsequently brought a claim of age discrimination.

The case ended up at The Supreme Court which found against Mr Seldon.

The court found that the firm’s defence , namely that Mr Seldons forced retirement was a proportionate  means of achieving a legitimate aim, was made out on the facts.

The court held that it was legitimate for the business to insist upon Mr Seldon’s retirement as it achieved a purpose which both satisfied public policy aims and business aims alike. The firms policy of using retirement to free up vacancies at partnership level , allowing future planning and reducing the need for performance managing staff were all found to be proportionate ways of achieving a legitimate business objective.

Whilst the case has given some useful guidance it has not really made the issue of retirement dismissals much clearer as the court shyed away from giving any indication as to at what age retirement dismissals could be justified.

If you requireadvice on the issues raised in this article please contact Andrew Grant on 01244 394 230.

This article is for information purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon for specific legal advice.

To contact us in the first instance we recommend either calling us by telephone or sending an email. If you are planning to visit us then please make use of the link to an on-line map below. We always welcome enquiries from new clients looking for specialist litigators.

Ballantyne Grant
1 Kings Building
Kings Street
Chester, CH1 2AJ

Tel: 01244 394 230
Fax: 01244 851 908
Email: agrant@ballantynegrantllp.com
View Larger Map

BallantyneGrant are Solicitors in Chester and ideally located for courts in Chester, Liverpool, the Wirral and Mold.

The damage suffered by the tenant was such that he could not occupy the property for several years.

After failing to reach agreement with the management company the tenant instructed Ballantyne Grant to issue proceedings in the High Court.

Following service of proceedings and protracted correspondence a settlement was achieved which resulted in the Management Company undertaking to complete all necessary works together with paying substantial damages to the tenant. A good result for the tenant.

Ballantyne Grant have a strong track record of property litigation and if you reqiuire advice or assistance in relation to any property related dispute please call Andrew Grant on 01244 394 230.

It is sometimes said that the law is out of date and not in touch with the real world. If one is being fair it could be said that there is at least some truth in that statement.

However, the law is constantly adapting to our ever changing environment and it is good to see a recent case making use of the ever increasing presence of Social media.

In the case of AKO Capital v TFI Derivatives the defendant wanted to join another party into the claim. However , they found difficulty with service.

In order to bring a claim one generally has to have an address upon which court papers can be served. If you do not know where the defendant is it creates difficulties which increase the costs and slows the process.

However, in the AKO case the solicitor found that the proposed third party had a facebook account. Accordingly he took the innovative step of seeking the courts permission to serve the court papers via the third parties facebook account. In order to get the courts permission he had to show that he had the right account and that is was active. This was done easily in this case.Accordingly , the court gave permission and the proceedings were served via facebook.

This is a great example of the law being prepared to modernise it’s approach and embrace new technologies to increase the efficiency of the process. It also highlights the importance of Social Media sites in litigation.

If you have any questions on this article please call Andrew Grant on 01244 394 230.

This article is for general guidance only and is no substitute for specific advice.

All four properties were situated in a fashionable and expensive area of London.

The notices had  been served by the local authority which claimed that  the properties posed a health and safety risk to occupiers. The notices could have had serious implications for the use of the properties and any subsequent sale value.

An appeal against the orders were lodged and the application was heard in London over 2 days.

All four prohibition orders were quashed with the tribunal finding the the local authority had exaggerated the risks posed by the properties.

The Housing Act 2004 poses real risks for unsuspecting landlords. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a prohibition notice you will need to act quickly and take expert advice. Contact Andrew Grant on 01244 394 230.

1. The maximum amount of a weeks pay for redundancy purposes increases from £400 to £430.

2.The compensatory award for unfair dismissal increases from £68,400 to £72,300.

3. The statutory guarantee payment increases from £22.20 to £23.50.

For information on these and other increases please contact Andrew Grant on 01244 394 230.

We would like to wish all of our clients and professional colleagues a merry christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year.

In Jones v Kernott the justices decided that where an unmarrried couple had separated and were arguing over their respective shares in jointly owned property the court could , in appropriate circumstances , decide what the parties intentions were and reach a conclusion that achieved the fairest outcome.

What this means in fact is that if matters concerning property ownership are not discussed and agreed then the court will decide who owns what interest !. This is both unsatisfactory and uncertain as it leaves the matter to be decided by lawyers and takes control from the parties.

To avoid this happening is easy, decide the respective interests in property at the outset and if the interests change record that fact.

This article is for general interest and is no substitute for specific legal advice.