Former MHK Martyn Perkins has spoken to the Courier after he won £33,000 in an age discrimination case.

Mr Perkins lost his Garff seat in the general election last year.

He and Geoffrey Boot, who lost his Glenfaba and Peel seat, were not awarded a payout given to losing MHKs – known as the resettlement grant – because they were deemed too old.

They were both over 60 when they lost their seats.

They challenged this at a tribunal.

As the Examiner reported earlier this week, they found to have been discriminated against because of their age.

Last month, before tribunal’s findings were published, Tynwald voted to remove the age limit and cut the grant by a third.

Mr Perkins said: ‘If this issue had been properly addressed at that stage, and not just ignored, this “age discrimination” case would never have needed to be brought before the tribunal.

‘Those of us who supported the passage of the Equality Act may never have expected to have to rely on it ourselves.’

He added: ‘This now means that this situation should not arise again.’

The tribunals of Mr Perkins and Mr Boot, which the former believes were run concurrently to save money.

Mr Perkins represented himself, while Mr Boot was represented by advocate Stephen Coren.

During evidence, Mr Perkins told the panel that it was ‘impossible’ to be re-employed.

He added: ‘I feel disadvantaged and discrimination by all.’

The two ousted MHKs were instead offered only the Tynwald members’ pension as they were of a ‘pensionable age’.

Mr Perkins was offered £328 per month while Mr Boot was offered £318.

In regards to his inquiries to the government about his resettlement grant and their response, Mr Perkins told the panel: ‘They could see the rhinos galloping down the corridor and knew what was coming next.’

Following the decision’s publication, he told the Isle of Man Courier: ‘The case is a reminder that the Act provides wide protection against various forms of discrimination in our society, including age-related discrimination.

‘Discrimination can have a very adverse effect on the person concerned.’