Peter Bloxham, the former head of restructuring at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, has lost his landmark £4.5 million age discrimination claim against the elite City law firm.

In the first major test of anti-age discrmination legislation since it was introduced last October, Mr Bloxham accused his former firm of using an overhaul of their pension fund as a clandestine means of forcing out older partners.

During the six-day hearing in July, Mr Bloxham, who now works as a policyholder advocate for Prudential, the insurer, told the London Central Employment Tribunal that Freshfields had “closed its eyes” to age discrimination laws.

But in a ruling released this afternoon, the tribunal said: “The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that [Mr Bloxham’s] compliant of discrimination on the grounds of age is not well-founded and is dismissed.”

Unlike other forms of discrimination, such as sex or race, age discrimination laws permit employers to adopt policies that could lead to some people losing out simply as a result of their age so long as they can demonstrate those policies were a “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

The tribunal said that Freshfields’ policies “not merely met” but “comfortably passed” this crucial test.

Although the case concerns the specific circumstances of how Mr Bloxham, 54, lost out financially because of complicated changes to the firm's pension scheme, Michael Burd, a lawyer for Freshfields, said the ruling has much wider application.

“Age discrimination is the only type of discrimination where an employer can say they were justified as a defence. The question of what is — and is not — justified has now been considered and some thresholds established,” he said.

Guy Morton, Freshfields' joint senior partner, said: "It is a pity that this misguided claim was ever brought.

"We are pleased that the tribunal has recognised that both the reforms to our partner pension scheme and the procedures through which they were adopted were fair."

Neither Mr Bloxham nor his lawyers were immediately available for comment.

The question of costs has yet to be addressed although it is unusual for the losing party in an employment dispute to be made to pay the winner’s legal fees.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Iranian bank challenges EU sanctions
• Lord Falconer to join Gibson Dunn
• A Judge by name is new Lord Chief Justice