header-logo header-logo

06 February 2019
Issue: 7827 / Categories: Legal News , Housing , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Housing charity wins in court

A Jewish housing association did not unlawfully discriminate against non-Jewish applicants by allocating social housing only to Orthodox Jews, the High Court has held.

In R (on the application of Z and others) v Hackney London Borough Council and another [2019] EWHC 139 (Admin), the court rejected an application for judicial review brought by a non-Jewish mother who sought an Agudas Israel Housing Association (AIHA) home in London’s Stamford Hill area, but was not allowed to bid. Z, the mother, has four children, two of whom are disabled, and has been given the highest possible priority rating for rehousing.

Giving their judgment, Lord Justice Lindblom and Sir Kenneth Parker, said: ‘AIHA’s arrangements are justified as proportionate… the disadvantages and needs of the Orthodox Jewish community are many and compelling. They are also in many instances very closely related to the matter of housing accommodation.’

They recognised that the Orthodox way of life requires members to live in a community; that they tend to have large families; and that recorded incidents of anti-Semitic abuse have increased, including vandalism, verbal abuse and harassment, common assault and tampering with cars.

AIHA says it has more than 1,000 Orthodox families on its waiting list.

Elliot Lister, partner at Asserson, which represented AIHA, said: ‘The Divisional Court has endorsed the critical work of a charity established to fight anti-Semitism and discrimination in the face of allegations that it itself discriminates.

‘The Jewish community and even more so the obviously Orthodox Jewish community, faces an ongoing battle against anti-Semitism, recognised by their Lordships as widespread and increasing and overt. The court has confirmed that the disadvantages can be legitimately addressed by a charity founded for that purpose, without fear of censure for discrimination.

‘For an organisation that was established to counter discrimination and has that as its mission, this is a particularly important judgment.’

Issue: 7827 / Categories: Legal News , Housing , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll