The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Seamus Mallon over the requirement that sheriffs retire at 70, affirming the High Court’s refusal of all relief, including a claim for damages.
Mr Mallon, a Revenue sheriff appointed in 1987, challenged section 12(6)(b) of the Court Officers Act 1945. The provision sets the sheriff retirement age at 70 and contains no mechanism for extending it. He argued that the rule discriminated on grounds of age and that the age limit was unjustified, particularly because coroners may serve until 72.
The Supreme Court held that the Minister for Justice’s email of 20 April 2021, stating that approval to serve beyond 70 was not forthcoming, was not a reviewable decision. The retirement requirement came from the 1945 Act, and any amendment was for the Oireachtas. The Court nevertheless held that Mr Mallon could seek a declaration on the law’s compatibility with the EU Employment Equality Directive. It also agreed that he was not required to pursue a complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission instead.
The Court found that a mandatory retirement age creates a difference in treatment based directly on age. It said, however, that such a rule can be justified under the Directive if it pursues legitimate aims and is proportionate. The State relied on workforce planning, age balance, dignity, intergenerational fairness and standardising retirement ages across public service roles. The Court accepted these as legitimate aims and said EU law does not generally require individual assessments before a retirement age is applied.
On proportionality, the Court noted that 70 is above the State pension age of 66 and that sheriffs may continue their legal practice after leaving office. Mr Mallon had continued to practise as a solicitor while serving as sheriff and did not argue that retirement caused him financial hardship.
The Court also rejected the argument that the coroners’ retirement age of 72 made the sheriff limit unlawful. It accepted uncontradicted evidence that the higher age was intended to retain experience and expertise in the coronial system, whose responsibilities had expanded. The Court said different retirement ages may be justified for distinct public service roles where there is an objective basis.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. The Court did not grant any of the relief sought, including the requested declaration and Francovich damages.