A former law firm partner who accused his firm of acting unlawfully by making him retire at 65 has lost his age discrimination case in the Court of Appeal.

Leslie Seldon, now 69, a former civil litigation partner at Kent law firm Clarkson Wright Jakes (CWJ), had signed a contract with the firm that included a clause saying he should retire aged 65.

However, Seldon argued that the UK’s default retirement age of 65 applied to employees only, not to equity partners. He claimed that the firm had discriminated against him by contractually obliging him to retire at 65.

CWJ, both at the original employment tribunal in 2008 and the employment appeal tribunal in 2009, argued that it retires partners at 65 so that younger solicitors at the firm are able to take up their places in the partnership. It maintained that this was a legitimate business aim because it helps retain talented lawyers who otherwise might move to another firm to gain advancement. By retiring Seldon, the firm said, it had used a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

In dismissing Seldon’s appeal this week, the Court of Appeal accepted CWJ’s arguments. Sir Mark Waller said: ‘It is in the interest of young would-be employees and/or actual employees that employers or firms should have a retirement age providing a greater likelihood of employment for young persons and reasonable prospects of promotion. It would be quite inconsistent… to hold that a compulsory retirement age whose aim was consistent with that social policy was not legitimate.’

The ruling came as the government today announced that it was to abolish the 65 default retirement age for employees from October 2011. However, equity partners will not be considered employees.