Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza - Essay Example

The Claimant Mr. Ghaidan who is also the appellant seek for an overturn of the Court of Appeal ruling in the Lordship’s House. The Court of Appeal ruled against Mr. Ghaidan who wanted to evict a tenant in his apartment claiming that the tenant-Mr. Godin-Mendoza did not have the right to inherit the property from the deceased spouse. The dead spouse and Mr. Godin-Mendoza had engaged in homosexual marriage1. Because in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27 the Lordship’s House did not recognise inheritance of property by a same sex partner Mr.

Ghaidan thought that this was the best opportunity to evict Mr. Godin-Mendoza from his flat. Mr. Godin-Mendoza was in the Lordship’s House as a defendant in the appeal case brought about by Mr. Ghaidan who wanted to evict him from his flat after the death of his partner Mr. Wallwyn-James had died2. Mr. Godin-Mendoza was living with a protected tenant who also happened to be his marriage partner- Mr. Wallwyn-James in basement flat at 17 Cresswell Gardens, London SW5. However, when his partner Mr.

Wallwyn-James died as rightful spouse he thought that he was protected by Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1977. This Act provides that a surviving spouse of the protected tenant if living in the same dwelling-house until the death of the partner will became an automatic legal tenant after the death of the protected partner. Mr. Godin-Mendoza was in the House of Lords to defend his right to occupy the dwelling house after the death of his spouse considering that the landlord wanted to evict him.

Judges in the case of Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] A number of judges presided over the appeal case in the Lordship’s House and they include Lord Steyn, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Millett, and Baroness Hale of Richmond3. The House of Lords judges dismissed the appeal by Mr. Ghaidan and as such the claimant- Mr. Ghaidan lost his case whereby he intended to expel Mr. Godin-Mendoza from the apartment. Difference between House of Lords decision and Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] The first imminent difference in the two cases involves the fact that one ruling recognised same-sex marriage while the other disputed same sex marriage with respect to succession of property from a deceased partner4.

In Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd case the judges expressed that it is only surviving partners of the heterosexual marriages that have a right to legal tenancy by succession after the death of their spouse with who they have been sharing a dwelling house. However this provision is not recognised in homosexual marriages and as such they have to compete with other members of the family of the protected tenant for rightful tenancy by succession. House of Lords decision in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza recognised same sex marriages in relation to legal tenancy by succession.

The House of Lords Judges stated that both the heterosexual and homosexual spouses have equal right in succeeding the dwelling house of the deceased spouse in which the couple have been living in together as husband and wife5. This is the main reason why the landlord Mr. Ghaidan failed his appeal which he tried to evict Mr. Godin-Mendoza because they were engaged in a same sex marriage. Material facts i) The fact that the defendant was a homosexual was a material fact. This is