header-logo header-logo

Housing charity wins in court

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll