- Cited — Philip Parr v MSR Partners LL (formerly Moore Stephens LLP) 2022-01-14
“…, even with a discretion to extend, is a rule or policy; and that this is demonstrated by the decision of the Supreme Court in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] ICR 716.…”
- Considered — Simawi v London Borough of Haringey 2019-10-31
“…ve justification: R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 1293, [2006] 1 WLR 3213 at [129]; Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16; [2012] ICR 716 at [59] and [76]. However, in the case of a retrospective justification, the court will not have had the benefit of the considered decision of the policy maker…”
- Considered — Ward & Ors, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon & Ors 2019-04-16
“…to justification: R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 1293, [2006] 1 WLR 3213 at [129]; Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16, [2012] ICR 716 at [59] and [76]. However, in the case of an ex post facto justification, the court will not have had the benefit of the considered decision of the policy make…”
- Cited — The Lord Chancellor & Anor v McCloud & Ors 2018-12-20
“…g both legitimacy of aims and proportionality of means. He said, however, (para 134) that the Supreme Court in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16; [2012] ICR 716 had reconciled these two approaches by:-…”
- Cited — The Lord Chancellor & Anor v McCloud & Ors 2018-12-20
“…stic and the European authorities. The parties agreed, however, that the most significant authority was that of Seldon vClarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16; [2012] ICR 716 in the Supreme Court which, although a case about a compulsory retirement age contained in a solicitors’ partnership, contains a comprehensive statement of the…”
- Cited — The Lord Chancellor & Anor v McCloud & Ors 2018-12-20
“…ed to that authority at para 72 above). Mr Cavanagh’s submission, relying on decisions of the CJEU and of the Supreme Court in Seldon v. Clarkson Wright &Jakes [2012] ICR 716 (which we discussed at paras 78 to 80), was that as the relevant aim was a social policy decision by a state, the exercise of objective justification did requi…”
- Cited — Air Products Plc v Cockram 2018-03-02
“…In the leading case of Seldon v Clarkson, Wright and Jakes [2012] ICR 716Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC said:-…”