This case involved a claim by the plaintiff that the defendant was not entitled to terminate his employment based on age. The plaintiff had worked for the defendant since 1998 and was informed a month before his 65th birthday that his employment would terminate with effect from his 65th birthday. This termination was due to the fact Mr Quigley would be reaching the purported maximum retirement age of 65.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought an injunction restraining same, pending the determination of proceedings. The plaintiff challenged the termination on the basis that his contract of employment was not subject to a maximum retirement age and there was no provision preventing him continuing in employment upon reaching the age of 65. The plaintiff claimed that the imposition of a compulsory retirement age, without justification, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age. He argued that he is entitled to remain in the employment for as long as he wishes, provided he is medically fit to undertake his duty of employment.

The Court, having considered the affidavits of both parties, stated that it was clear that the contract had been for an indefinite period with no mention that the employment would terminate due to compulsory retirement on an employee’s 65th birthday. The Court held that the plaintiff made a strong case, which is likely to succeed on the basis that his contract was for an indefinite period and that nobody in the same position, who had been involved in employment with the defendant in 2001, had been forced to retire at age 65.

The Court stated that damages would be an inadequate remedy in the circumstances and granted the injunction based on the balance of convenience:
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/603e3fc889129b3f802581d00042f0a8?OpenDocument