header-logo header-logo

15 October 2020
Categories: Legal News , Housing
printer mail-detail

Positive discrimination upheld in housing case

A housing charity did not breach the Equality Act 2010 by reserving its properties for Orthodox Jewish people, the Supreme Court has held

The Agudas Israel Housing Association (AIHA) in London’s Stamford Hill area supplies 470 homes for rent with the caveat ‘consideration only to the Orthodox Jewish community’. A non-Jewish woman with four children who was seeking social housing challenged the policy.

In R (Z & Anor) v Hackney London Borough Council & Anor [2020] UKSC 40, however, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld earlier rulings that the policy was proportionate and lawful because it was intended to tackle social and economic disadvantage encountered by the Othodox Jewish Haredi Jews in the area.  

Lord Sales, giving the lead judgment, said the charity’s housing stock amounted to ‘1% of the overall number of 47,000 units of general social needs housing in the council’s area’. The High Court had commented that positive discrimination by a larger housing association might not have been lawful.

Lord sales continued: ‘The Orthodox Jewish community tend to have large families and so have a greater need, as a community, for larger properties, including those with four bedrooms. AIHA’s stock of social housing has been developed with that in mind, so it has a proportionately greater share of the stock of larger properties available for social housing in Hackney.’

He referred to evidence given in the Divisional Court that there were high levels of poverty and deprivation in the community, that members need to remain close to each other, that the community is subjected to ‘widespread and increasing overt antisemitism’, and that the traditional clothing worn by members heightens their exposure to antisemitism. Moreover, the properties were designed with kosher kitchens, no television aerials and mezuzahs on communal doors.

Categories: Legal News , Housing
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
back-to-top-scroll