In the first of two landmark rulings on age discrimination, elite law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has won its case against former partner Peter Bloxham.

Bloxham challenged changes to pension provision as discriminatory on the grounds of age, but the Central London Employment Tribunal found that although Freshfields was discriminatory on the grounds of age, this was justified because it was a proportionate means of reforming the firm's pension system.

This ruling was followed shortly after by the European Court of Justice's decision that a Spanish firm was justified in forcing out an employee at 65, because it helped reduce unemployment and because it offered a full pension entitlement. 

Bloxham's complaint turned on the 20pc disparity, between 55-year-old partners, who were entitled to their full pension, and 54-year-olds, who were entitled to 80pc.

The tribunal found that this was legitimate and also rejected Bloxham's claim that the firm has been using an overhaul of their pension fund as a clandestine means of forcing out older partners.

It said although Bloxham suffered less favourable treatment than his 55-year-old peers under the transitional arrangements, 'no alternative, less discriminatory solution could be conceived' by the magic circle firm in reforming its pension scheme.

The tribunal also found that Bloxham was not 'forced' to retire any more so than those partners around his age who also had to choose whether to take up Freshfields' new pension package.

The verdict could have an impact on former Freshfields corporate partner Lois Moore, who is bringing a similar age discrimination claim against the firm. Bloxham was one of the first people to file a claim of age discrimination after the introduction of new legislation last October.

His advisors, Dawsons Solicitors, say he is reviewing the implications of the result and the options open to him:

"Our client is naturally disappointed but his case has clarified the interpretation and application of the new law. Although the tribunal's decision has not gone his way he was entirely justified in questioning a process that has been shown to be discriminatory."