R (Z and Anor) v Hackney LBC & Anor

[2020] UKSC 40, Lords Reed, Kerr, Kitchen and Sales and Lady Arden

Introduction

The case involved a challenge to Hackney’s allocation of about 1% of its social housing via a charitable housing association (Agudas Israel Housing Association/ AIHA) which prioritized applicants from the Orthodox Jewish Community. The reasons for the priority were, inter alia, that Orthodox Jewish families were disadvantaged in access to general social housing by reason of their tendency to have large families; that they suffered from significant economic disadvantage and discrimination in access to private sector accommodation; and that they needed to live in proximity to each other for religious reasons and because of antisemitism. The decision is an important one in rejecting the argument that a narrow approach should be taken to the parameters of lawful positive action.

Continue reading

R (on the application of Caine) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

[2020] EWHC 2482 (Admin), Julian Knowles J

The claimant sought to challenge the calculation of the housing element of Universal Credit (UC) on the basis, inter alia, that it discriminated between weekly and monthly paying tenants. Continue reading

R (Bridges) v CC South Wales Police

[2020] EWCA Civ 1058, Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp P and Singh LJ

The Court of Appeal allowed the Claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court that the Defendant had not breached the PSED in its trial of live automated facial recognition technology Continue reading

Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Mayor of London & Transport for London (Interested Party)

[2020] EWCA Civ 1046, Sir Geoffrey Vos C, Singh and Simler LJJ

The claimant unsuccessfully appealed against the rejection by Lewis J of its challenge to the decision to remove the exemption in the congestion charging regime which had previously applied to private hire vehicles (PHVs). The exemption remained applicable to black cabs and to the 1% of PHVs which were wheelchair accessible. The claimant argued that the removal of the exemption amounted to indirect discrimination against BAME and women PHV drivers, 94% of PHV drivers being from BAME backgrounds whereas 88% of black cab drivers were white. Continue reading