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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll