A mandatory retirement age in a GP partnership deed is not automatically enforceable. Under the Equality Act 2010, requiring a partner to retire at a fixed age is direct age discrimination unless the practice can show the clause is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and the burden of proving that sits with the practice, not the partner being asked to leave.
Many older GP partnership deeds still include a compulsory retirement age, commonly 65, sometimes with a requirement for the partner to obtain annual written consent from the other partners to continue beyond it. These clauses were drafted at a time when a default retirement age of 65 applied across UK employment law generally. That default was abolished for employees in October 2011, and while the position for partners has always been governed separately, the direction of travel in recent case law is towards much closer scrutiny of any clause that forces someone out purely because of their age.
Why a Retirement Age Clause Is Discrimination in the First Place
Age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Section 13 sets out the general test for direct discrimination, and age is treated differently from every other protected characteristic in one important respect: section 13(2) allows an employer or partnership to escape liability for direct age discrimination if it can show its treatment of the individual is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.” No equivalent defence exists for discrimination based on sex, race, disability or the other protected characteristics.
Section 44 of the Act extends this protection specifically to partnerships, prohibiting discrimination against a partner in the terms on which they hold their position, and by expelling them. A GP partnership that forces a partner out at a set age, or refuses to renew their position beyond that age, falls squarely within this section unless it can make out the objective justification defence.
The practical effect is that a retirement age clause is not void from the outset, but it is not safe either. It starts from a presumption of unlawfulness that the practice then has to displace with evidence.
Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes: Where the Defence Came From
The leading authority is Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (a partnership) [2012] UKSC 16, a Supreme Court decision concerning a solicitor required to retire from his law firm partnership at 65 under the partnership deed. The Supreme Court held that a mandatory retirement age in a partnership agreement is capable of being objectively justified, and identified the categories of legitimate aim that can support such a clause: workforce planning and succession, allowing younger professionals a realistic route to partnership, and avoiding the need to performance manage older partners out on capability grounds, described by the court as protecting the “dignity” of older colleagues rather than subjecting them to a difficult capability process.
Seldon confirmed the age of 65 chosen by that firm was justified in the circumstances, partly because it matched the then-default retirement age for the firm’s employees and partly because the partners themselves had consented to it. Seldon did not create a blanket rule that 65, or any other age, is automatically acceptable. Each clause has to be justified on its own facts, by reference to the specific business and its circumstances.
Scott v Walker Morris LLP: The 2025 Case That Raised the Bar
A 2025 Leeds Employment Tribunal decision shows how far scrutiny has moved on since Seldon. In Scott v Walker Morris LLP, an equity partner was forced to retire under the firm’s policy of a presumptive retirement age of 60, with the option to apply for an extension only where the partner could demonstrate “exceptional contribution.” The firm argued its policy pursued the same legitimate aims recognised in Seldon: workforce and succession planning, and maintaining a collegiate, cohesive partnership.
The tribunal rejected the defence. It found no evidence that older partners were actually blocking younger partners’ progression, no evidence that partner performance genuinely declined with age, and no evidence the firm had seriously considered less discriminatory alternatives, such as extending the retirement age, using structured career and succession conversations, or strengthening its existing performance review process instead of relying on a blanket age cut-off. The tribunal was explicit that justifications for a retirement age “must be provable rather than theoretical,” and that assumptions about older partners “slowing down” are exactly the kind of stereotype the Equality Act exists to prevent.
| Factor | Seldon (2012, retirement age upheld) | Scott v Walker Morris (2025, retirement age struck down) |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence of business need | Linked to the firm’s employee retirement age at the time and consented to by partners | No documentary evidence that the aims were actually being achieved |
| Alternatives considered | Less scrutiny required, as norms were different in 2012 | Tribunal found the firm had not seriously considered less discriminatory options |
| Performance link | Accepted in principle as a legitimate concern | Rejected as “anecdotal” and based on assumptions, not evidence |
| Outcome | Retirement age objectively justified | Retirement age found to be unlawful age discrimination |
What This Means Specifically for GP Partnerships
No reported case has yet tested a mandatory retirement clause in a GP partnership deed directly, so we cannot point to a GP-specific precedent either way. What we can say, based on how Seldon and Scott v Walker Morris have been applied, is that a GP partnership’s position is different from a law firm’s in ways that cut both directions.
On one hand, the “career progression” argument may carry more weight for GP partnerships than it does for other professions. Unlike a law firm, where junior partners can in principle win new client relationships and build a book of business, a GP partner’s opportunities are constrained by a fixed patient list and a capped number of partnership shares. That structural limit strengthens the workforce planning argument in a way City law firms often cannot demonstrate.
On the other hand, Scott v Walker Morris makes clear that a tribunal will want to see the argument backed by actual evidence specific to the practice, not simply assumed. A practice would need to show, for example, real difficulty recruiting or retaining younger GPs because of a lack of partnership opportunities, or a genuine and documented workforce planning need, rather than relying on the general proposition that GP partnerships work differently from other professions.
The NHS Pension Age Complication
Older partnership deeds that tie retirement to age 65 are increasingly out of step with the NHS Pension Scheme itself. Under the 2015 Scheme, a member’s normal pension age is linked to their State Pension age, or 65 if that is later. The State Pension age begins rising from 66 to 67 in stages from 6 April 2026, affecting those born between April 1960 and March 1961, with a further rise to 68 currently planned for between 2044 and 2046, according to the published GOV.UK timetable.
A retirement age clause fixed at 65 in a partnership deed may now force a GP out of the practice years before they can draw their full NHS pension without reduction, which is itself a factor a tribunal is likely to weigh when assessing whether the clause is proportionate. It also creates a practical mismatch: a partner who cannot yet access their pension in full has a strong incentive to challenge a forced exit, and the financial hardship involved will count against the practice in any proportionality assessment.
Practical Steps for Practices Considering a Retirement Age Clause
- Do not assume a round number like 65 is safe simply because it was common historically. Base any age on evidence specific to your practice, not convention.
- Document the actual business reasons for the clause in writing at the time it is adopted or reviewed, including any workforce planning data, recruitment difficulties, or succession pressures. Scott v Walker Morris turned significantly on the absence of this kind of contemporaneous evidence.
- Review the clause regularly, not just at the point it is drafted. A clause that was justifiable when adopted can become harder to justify as circumstances change.
- Consider less discriminatory alternatives before defaulting to a hard cut-off: staged reduction in sessions, an uncapped extension process based on genuine capability review, or tying any age limit to NHS pension age rather than an arbitrary fixed number.
- Keep any capability or performance concerns about an individual partner entirely separate from age. Using a retirement age clause as a substitute for addressing genuine underperformance is one of the clearest routes to a successful discrimination claim.
- Take advice before relying on the clause to remove a partner, and before drafting one into a new or updated deed. The consequences of getting this wrong include tribunal awards for age discrimination, which are uncapped.
If your partnership deed still includes a fixed retirement age, or if you are dealing with a partner who is approaching one, this is worth reviewing alongside your wider deed rather than in isolation. A poorly drafted or unsupported retirement clause creates risk for the whole partnership, not just the individual affected. Our partnership agreements team regularly drafts and reviews GP partnership deeds, and where a retirement age dispute has already escalated, our employment team advises on the discrimination law side. For related reading, see our articles on GP partnership agreements and what every partner should know, what to think about before leaving a GP partnership, and retaining your property share after GP retirement.
What This Means for Your Practice
Retirement age clauses in GP partnership deeds sit in genuinely uncertain legal territory. They are not automatically void, but recent case law shows tribunals expect solid, practice-specific evidence before they will uphold one, and assumptions about age and performance will not be enough. Whether you are drafting a new deed, reviewing an old one, or facing a dispute over an existing clause, this is not something to handle without proper advice, given the scale of potential tribunal awards for age discrimination.
If this affects your practice and you would like to talk it through, get in touch with our healthcare team or call us on +44 207 566 1188. You can also reach us by email at info@gurvelegal.com.
