Two claimants were Professors at the University of Oxford. One of them, Professor Pitcher, was also employed by St Johns College as a tutor while the other, Professor Ewart, had taken on a fixed-term position after retiring from his substantive position. Both had retired under the Employer Justified Retirement Age (“EJRA”) that the University and the College operated. In separate ET proceedings Professor Pitcher’s claim failed, so he appealed, while Professor Ewart succeeded and the University appealed.

The EAT found that, although the ETs reached different conclusions on proportionality, neither had erred in law. The nature of the proportionality assessment meant it was possible for different ETs to reach different conclusions when considering the same measure adopted by the same employer in respect of the same aims. The EAT does not have to strive to find a single answer, but to consider whether a particular decision was wrong in law. Although justification related to the policy and not its individual application, the presentation of the claims and the evidence before the ETs differed in material respects.

This judgment is combined with: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Ewart: EA-2020-000128-RN