Case Brief of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza PDF

Preview

Summary

Case: Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza...

Description

Case Brief Name of case: Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza Names of parties: Ahmad Ghaidan and Juan Godin-Mendoza Court: UK House of Lords Judges: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Baroness Hale of Richmond Essential facts: In 1983, Mr Ghaidan, the claimant, who was the freehold owner of a flat, granted an oral residential tenancy upon Hugh Wallwyn-James under the Rent ACT 1977. Mr Wallwyn-James lived there for 18 years in a stable and homosexual relationship with the defendant, Mr Godin-Mendoza. After Mr Wallwyn-James’ death in 2001, the claimant brought proceedings against the defendant, claiming possession of the flat. The defendant argued that he had succeeded to the tenancy of the flat as Mr Wallwyn-James’ “surviving spouse”. The county court judge held that he had not and accordingly, the defendant appealed. Legal issues: Whether the defendant who lived in a homosexual relationship with the tenant was brought within the definition of “spouse” under paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Rent Act1977; Whether the defendant was becoming a statutory tenant as the spouse of the deceased or only entitled to an assured tenancy as a member of the deceased’s “family”; Whether the exclusion of same-sex partners to “spouses” by paragraph2(2) violated Convention rights; Whether British domestic legislation should be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with EU Convention rights. Decision: Given the House of Lords decision handed down in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd, where the Lordships rejected an argument that a same-sex relationship was brought within the scope of paragraph2(2) , The court of appeal reconsidered that the present case should lie on the application of section3 of HRA 1998 after it came into force, that is to say, the interpretation of RA 1977 were necessary to be compatible with ECHR and HRA 1998. The court of appeal held that the meaning of the word ”spouse” should be extended to connote a relationship not only between a man and a woman but also the same-sex couple, otherwise it could infringe the defendant, Mr Godin-Mendoza’s rights under article 8 read in conjunction with article 14 of the HRA 1998. The leading judgement concluded that the exclusion of same-sex partners by para2(2) would violate the convention rights to respect for a person’s home without discrimination. As a result, the defendant had met the condition of being treated as the spouse of the deceased for the purposes of paragraph2(2) and was entitled to become a statutory tenant. On landlord’s further appeal, the House of Lords consented to the decision of the Court of Appeal. Dissenting judgements: Lord Millett was the only one of the five Law Lords to give a dissenting opinion on the application of section 3 of HRA 1998 with respect to interpretation of legislation. He held that there were limits to its application and the court were required to read the statute in a way which is

compatible with the Convention by a process of interpretation alone....