Housing Orthodox Jewish Only not Discriminatory
Hackney had statutory housing functions as to allocating social housing. It also nominated applicants to properties owned by housing associations, including AIHA, which only accepted for such nominations households belonging to the Orthodox Jewish community. Hackney identified the First Appellant (Z), who is not a member of the Orthodox Jewish community, as having the highest level of housing need in the borough due to the vulnerability of her children (one of whom, RS, is the Second Appellant). Hackney agreed to make Z a ‘direct offer’ of the next available and suitable unit of permanent social housing. However, suitable housing was not provided until February 2019. Between October 2017 and February 2019, AIHA allocated various properties to members of the Orthodox Jewish community. The Appellants did not apply for, and Hackney did not nominate them for, any of those properties because of AIHA’s policy of only letting to Orthodox Jewish households.
The Appellants challenged AIHA’s allocation policy and Hackney’s allocation arrangements with AIHA by judicial review. The Divisional Court refused the application and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court was now asked whether the Housing Charity acted unlawfully or not in restricting access to its stock of social housing.
Held: Section 158 and 193 allowed certain limited exemption to the general prohibition of discrimination for protected characteristics. The actions of the Housing Association, and therefore the Council fell within those exemptions.
Lord Reed, President, Lord Kerr, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales
[2020] UKSC 40
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
Equality Act 2010 158 193, Council Directive 2000/43/EC, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Appeal from (CA) – Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney and Another CA 27-Jun-2019
A charitable institution was set up to provide and did provide housing assistance to members of the Orthodox Jewish Community. The court was now asked whether this discrimination was lawful. . .
At First Instance (Admn) – Z and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another Admn 4-Feb-2019
The claim challenges the arrangements made by AIHA for the allocation of social housing properties owned or controlled by AIHA, which in present circumstances in effect preclude any persons who are not members of the Orthodox Jewish community from . .
Cited – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Discrimination, Charity, European
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.654666