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

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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll