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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll