An Employment Tribunal has upheld age discrimination and unfair dismissal claims brought by David Livesey, former Connells Group CEO, against parent company Skipton Building Society. The judgment centred on share valuation: Livesey received 46p for shares he paid £420,000 for at age 64, whilst a younger executive received £1.6 million for a smaller stake. Judge R Wood found the "less favourable treatment" over the shares was not justified. A remedy hearing is scheduled for October 2026.
The ruling creates immediate exposure for agency groups operating equity schemes tied to retirement or age-based exit. Corporate principals, HR directors and compliance officers must now audit whether their share option, partnership exit or equity clawback terms differentiate treatment by age without objective justification. For agencies owned by building societies, banks or insurers, the judgment presents additional conduct risk under FCA and PRA governance standards.
What the tribunal found
David Livesey, now 67, served 16 years as Connells Group CEO and announced his retirement in 2023 aged 64. According to tribunal evidence reported by The Negotiator, Skipton Building Society sent Livesey a cheque for 46p for Connells shares that cost him £420,000. David Plumtree, a former group chief executive now aged 57, received £1.6 million for a smaller shareholding.
Judge R Wood upheld claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination. A claim for bullying was rejected. Skipton Building Society stated all bullying claims were "decisively rejected" and said it is reviewing the full tribunal decision. The remedy hearing in October 2026 will determine compensation. Livesey originally filed a reported £7 million claim in June 2024, though the tribunal award may be substantially lower.
The judgment does not detail the share valuation formula or explain why the tribunal concluded age was the determining factor in the disparity. That gap matters. If the valuation was tied to retirement status, length of remaining service, or performance metrics that correlate with age, agencies using similar structures face equivalent risk.
Equity schemes under scrutiny
Many large agency groups use shareholder or equity partnership models to retain senior staff and align incentives. Exit terms typically reference retirement age, voluntary departure, or performance milestones. This judgment suggests that valuation mechanisms producing different outcomes for employees approaching or past 60 may breach the Equality Act 2010 unless objectively justified by legitimate business aims and proportionate means.
The tribunal did not find that differential treatment on grounds of age is always unlawful. It found that Skipton's treatment of Livesey was not justified in this case. That leaves room for agencies to defend exit structures based on tenure, role criticality, or financial performance, but only if those criteria are documented, applied consistently, and demonstrably unrelated to age.
For agencies with employee ownership or management equity schemes, the risk is highest where exit terms vary between individuals of different ages under similar circumstances. Boards and compliance officers should audit whether share buyback clauses, partnership exit multiples, or equity clawback provisions differentiate by retirement status or age thresholds without objective commercial rationale.
Regulatory pressure for building society owners
Skipton Building Society is regulated by the FCA and PRA under conduct and governance standards. Age discrimination findings against a subsidiary's parent may trigger regulatory review of board conduct, particularly if the treatment of a senior executive suggests wider governance failures.
Livesey has publicly called for FCA and PRA scrutiny, stating the findings "raise serious regulatory concerns about some of the most senior people at Skipton". There is no confirmation that regulators are investigating. However, building societies are subject to heightened expectations around fair treatment of staff and conduct risk. If the remedy award is substantial or if other claims emerge, regulatory interest becomes more likely.
For agencies owned by financial institutions, the judgment creates reputational and regulatory spillover. Conduct failures in a subsidiary can reflect on the parent's governance and risk culture, particularly where the parent directly controlled or approved the disputed policy.