Nicole Keeling
A landmark employment tribunal ruling has found that Walker Morris, a top-100 law firm based in Leeds, unlawfully discriminated against a senior partner by forcing him to retire at the age of 63.
The case centres on Martin Scott, a long-standing partner who had worked at the firm since 1990 and was instrumental in founding its construction and engineering department.
The tribunal determined that the firm’s mandatory retirement policy, which required partners over the age of 60 to reapply to stay on, amounted to age discrimination. Scott, who had been granted a three-year extension to his retirement date in 2020 after demonstrating an “exceptional contribution,” was denied a further extension in 2023. The firm argued that Scott’s application was rejected due to his failure to demonstrate that he could make another “exceptional contribution” to the firm, rather than any age-related bias.
However, the tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge Ayre, ruled that had Scott been younger than 60, he would not have been subjected to the same treatment. The panel found that the firm’s actions amounted to “less favourable treatment because of age,” and the policy was not a proportionate means of achieving its intended objectives.
Walker Morris defended its stance, claiming that the retirement policy was designed to promote “intergenerational fairness” and to create more opportunities for younger partners. The firm stated that its decision was based on the belief that Scott’s proposed work did not align with the firm’s current needs and was not considered a strong enough contribution for an extension. They also pointed out that Scott had been part of the decision-making process when the retirement policy was established, and had voted in favour of changes to the retirement rules.
However, the tribunal dismissed the firm’s argument, stating that the policy was based on unsubstantiated assumptions about the performance and energy levels of senior partners, which were not supported by any objective evidence. The tribunal highlighted that there was no data suggesting that the firm had experienced any issues with the performance of older partners or that younger partners were being hindered by a lack of progression opportunities.
The case is a significant moment for age discrimination law, particularly within the legal sector, where mandatory retirement policies are common. Giles Ward, a partner at Milners Solicitors, who represented Scott, noted that the ruling had broad implications for the profession, emphasising that this could lead to a re-evaluation of similar policies across law firms and other professional service firms.
“This judgment is a stark reminder that age discrimination laws exist to protect employees and professionals from policies that unfairly target older individuals without proper justification,” Ward said. “It also serves as a warning to firms that such policies must be supported by objective, evidence-based reasoning.”
The tribunal also questioned the firm’s reliance on anecdotal evidence provided by former managing partner Malcolm Simpson, who suggested that the performance of many older partners naturally declines. The judgment stated that such opinions were personal beliefs and not grounded in any measurable or documented evidence.
Walker Morris has expressed disappointment with the ruling, and a remedy hearing is scheduled for May 2025 to determine the compensation Scott is entitled to. The firm stated that it would consider its response to the decision, while also maintaining that its retirement policies were put in place to ensure fairness for future generations of partners.
The tribunal’s ruling is expected to spark further debate about the fairness of mandatory retirement policies, especially in firms where senior partners hold significant equity and influence. For Scott, the victory represents a significant moment in his long career, and the case is likely to become a touchstone for similar claims in the future.