Mandatory retirement upheld through legitimate, proportionate objectives.

The Complainant submitted that his compulsory retirement at age 65 constituted unlawful age discrimination. He had commenced employment in October 1980 and maintained that his original civil service pension and retirement entitlements had been preserved following privatisation. He argued that the Respondent’s retirement policy did not override those arrangements. Having sought an extension beyond age 65, he underwent an occupational health assessment and was certified fit for work. Nevertheless, his application and subsequent appeal were refused on grounds including succession planning, intergenerational fairness and health and safety. He challenged the necessity and proportionality of those justifications, maintaining that he remained capable of performing his duties. Following retirement, he undertook substantially identical