The claimant was a senior manager in the Bank. During a restructuring exercise he sought redundancy and an early retirement option - he was aged 50. The costs to the bank of his severance package would have been in the region of £0.5m, so his case was referred upwards for approval. The bank baulked at paying out such a sum and offered him an alternative post, which he took.

A further restructuring led to his termination on grounds of redundancy but the excellent early retirement option was gone - the age limit to retire early with a non-discounted pension had been raised to 55. The EAT has concluded that the claimant's case of age discrimination has been made out:

"...the question was not why the Respondent had taken into account the Claimant’s age; it was, rather, whether it did so.  Here, it was the Claimant’s age that gave rise to the costs complications for the Respondent, to the legal risk and, therefore, the need to obtain high level approval, and to the additional imperative to explore all redeployment opportunities.  The Claimant’s age was inherent in each of the matters identified.  It was the reason why the Respondent did not extend to him the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy as it did in the cases of his comparators."

The case was referred to the original tribunal for consideration of the question of justification.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2015/0162_15_1610.html