- "In the last 20 years our business has changed considerably…and as the focus of our business has changed, Bird Luckin have moved with us."
Alex Tanner, George Tanner (Shalford) Ltd
- "Bird Luckin has looked after us incredibly well for over 60 years, they are pro-active and innovational - meeting all our needs to help us achieve our aims."
Richard Stubbings, Cliffords Limited
- "I can honestly say that Bird Luckin are the best firm of accountants and auditors I have ever dealt with - and I don't say that lightly!"
Colin Webb, Walthamstow Stadium
- "It's important for us to know that we will always be able to contact the right people to give us the right advice and support."
Jane Bennett, Bennetts Funeral Directors
- "Although we deal mainly with one Partner … we also know that if we need to contact someone else who is a specialist in another area, we can get the advice we need quickly and easily"
Jeremy Ruggles, J.S. Wright & Sons Ltd
- "Bird Luckin got us to a stage which would have taken us months - if not years - to reach on our own, and they got us there in a matter of weeks"
Matthew Sullivan, SNC Ltd
- "You can be a good accountant, but if you don't have an understanding of the industry it can be very difficult. "There are two or three people we have regular contact with at Bird Luckin who know our business well, and it makes a difference.""
Robert Church, W A Church (Bures) Ltd
- "The work which Bird Luckin has done for Boddingtons over the past few months has helped shape our future direction for the better."
John Warner, Chief Executive, Boddingtons Ltd
- "Bird Luckin has acted for us since our inception 10 years ago. They have a very 'can do' yet highly professional attitude - we are very appreciative of their support and advice over the years."
Marlon Fox, Outlook Property Ltd
Landmark Supreme Court ruling on forced retirement
The UK Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from an older worker who was forced to retire, in a landmark ruling that may establish new ground rules for employer powers regarding the treatment of older employees.
Leslie Seldon argued that his law firm employer's decision to make him retire shortly after his 65 birthday was effectively age discrimination.
Seldon, who had his request to continue working refused, took his case to an employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, before it was unanimously dismissed.
Although the case has been dismissed, it has now been referred back to the employment tribunal who must decide if 65 was an appropriate age for Seldon to be forced to go. Some commentators warned that while the ruling had provided some clarity for employers, it remained uncertain what age was deemed acceptable to retire somebody.
The firm involved in the ruling argued that forcing older workers to retire was acceptable because it ensured younger workers could climb up the career ladder, allowed greater planning of when future vacancies would arise and avoided the need to dismiss workers for poor work performance.
The UK default retirement age was abolished in October 2011, stopping employers compulsorily retiring workers once they reached the age of 65. It is the first time that the defence of 'public interest' has been applied to an age discrimination case, which outlined justification for bringing back mandatory retirement rules.
The judgement, as reported by the BBC, said: "All businesses will now have to give careful consideration to what, if any, mandatory retirement rules can be justified in their particular business."
Michelle Mitchell, charity director general of Age UK which took Seldon's case to the Supreme Court, believed it was still a victory for older workers which reinforced that 'ageist stereotypes were out of date.'
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) insisted that employers still had a lot to gain from recruiting and retaining an ageing workforce.
Dianah Worman, diversity adviser at the CIPD, said: "Dismissing people because of their age, rather than their performance and capability, is not only potentially unfairly discriminatory, but counter-productive too. It robs employers and the economy of the talent and skills we need to thrive in the modern, competitive world."
"In our view, good succession planning is about ensuring that there are employees with the right talent, skills and capabilities to sustain business performance. It is not about throwing well-performing older workers out on their ear simply because there are ambitious younger workers snapping at their heels."