Housing Allocation and Religion: R (aoa Z and others) v LB Hackney, Agudas Israel Housing Association Limited [2019] EWCA Civ, 1099, 27 June 2019

S. 29 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’) prohibits service providers from discriminating, whether directly or indirectly, in relation to a protected characteristic such as ethnicity or religion.

There are exemptions to this prohibition.  A charity is not prevented from restricting the provision of benefits to particular groups of persons if it can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim or is for the purpose of ‘preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic’ (S. 193 EqA).  Nor does the prohibition prevent a person from taking positive action to alleviate disadvantage (S. 158 EqA).

The Agudas Israel Housing Association (‘AIHA’) is a charitable housing association with properties in a part of Hackney with a substantial Orthodox Jewish community.  AIHA’s primary object is to provide social housing for the benefit of the Orthodox Jewish community.  LB Hackney has nomination rights to properties owned by AIHA.  Hackney nominates those on the housing list to AIHA who are not Orthodox Jewish, but in practice, given the dearth properties in the area, only members of the Orthodox Jewish community are allocated housing.

The Appellant, a mother with four children who is not a member of the Orthodox Jewish Community, challenged the allocation policies of Hackney and AIHA.  It was common ground that AIHA’s arrangements for allocating housing amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of religion.  The Appellant was unsuccessful before the Divisional Court which held, having considered evidence about the specific housing needs of members of the Orthodox Jewish Community and about anti-Semitism, that the discrimination was lawful for two reasons.  First, because the arrangements were a proportionate means of overcoming a disadvantage shared by members of the Orthodox Jewish Community, and thus permitted by S. 158 EqA.  Second, the arrangements were made pursuant to a charitable instrument, and were either a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; or were for the purpose of compensating for a disadvantage linked to a protected characteristic, and permitted by S. 193 EqA.

The Decision

The Court of Appeal robustly dismissed the appeal.  AIHA’s allocation policy was permitted by S. 193 EqA because it prevented disadvantage.  As regarded the proportionality assessment, which is an alternative route to exemption under S. 193, the lower court had heard detailed evidence and an appeal court should be slow to interfere. There had not been an error of law that would allow the appeal court to interfere.  Further, the exception under S. 158 was engaged, allowing AIHA to take positive action to alleviate disadvantage.


The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.

Our Expertise