Mr P Parr v Moore Stephens LLP and 7 others — 2019

At the preliminary hearing on 11 and 12 September 2019, Employment Judge Elliott held that Mr Philip Parr's direct age discrimination claim was within time and should proceed to a full merits hearing. The claim arose from the firm's retirement age of 60 for equity partners and the later decision to allow him to remain only as a fixed share partner until 30 April 2020. The tribunal recorded that clause 29 of the Members' Agreement contained the retirement rule and a discretion for extension with Partnership Executive Committee approval.

The tribunal found that Mr Parr reached 60 on 23 February 2018 and was demoted from equity partner to fixed share partner with effect from 1 May 2018. It accepted that this was a demotion, not a dismissal, and held that if time did not run by reason of a continuing act then the relevant date for limitation purposes was 1 May 2018, not the October 2017 de-equitisation deed. The tribunal rejected the argument that the claim was out of time from the date of the deed and also rejected the claimant's alternative submission that early conciliation should be notionally added back to make the claim timely.

Applying the authorities it cited, including Hendricks, Amies and Kapur, the tribunal held that the retirement rule in clause 29 was a continuing rule and continuing state of affairs which caused less favourable treatment because of age while it remained in force. On that basis, the claim was presented within time and it was unnecessary to decide whether it would otherwise have been just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal referred to Seldon in argument but said it was not appropriate at this stage to express any view on the full merits. No remedy was assessed at this hearing, and the claimant's schedule of loss, which quantified losses in the region of £3.75 million, was not the subject of an award.