An appeal hearing has ruled that a man who previously successfully argued he was the victim of age discrimination was in fact not.
A man referred to as Mr Homer was denied an application for a pay rise by his employers the Police National Legal Database in his role as a legal adviser.
This was because a new system put in place by the organisation required candidates to have a law degree, which he did not.
The worker claimed age discrimination, saying that he had been disadvantaged because he would not be able to complete a law degree before he retired.
However, a recent appeal found that the financial consequence that resulted from being unable to complete a degree before retirement was an inevitable result of age and not one of age discrimination.
Responding to the verdict, Arpita Dutt, employment solicitor at Russell Jones & Walker, commented: "This case is the first time the Court of Appeal has explored in detail the indirect age discrimination provisions which were alleged to have prevented Mr Homer from being re-graded prior to retirement.
"It refers to the present retirement age of 65 as a 'disguised barrier'. Unfortunately, in this case Mr Homer did not establish that he belonged to an age group which had been put at a particular disadvantage compared to persons in other age groups by having insufficient time before retirement at 65 to complete the part-time law digress course and so achieve re-grading.
"The case may be the subject of a further appeal to the Supreme Court."