Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd

Last updated

Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd
CourtHouse of Lords
Full case name FITZPATRICK (A.P.)(APPELLANT) v. STERLING HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD. (RESPONDENTS)
Decided29 October 1999
CitationFitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999] UKHL 42; [1999] 4 All ER 705; [1999] 3 WLR 1113 (28 October 1999)
Transcript judgment
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd was a 1999 legal case heard by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords regarding the meaning of the word 'family' with regards to the Rent Act 1977. The Lords found that a gay couple living together could be seen as a family for the purposes of housing law, and that a family relationship did not require either a blood relationship (as between parent and child) or marriage (at the time, neither marriage nor civil partnerships were available for same-sex couples). [1] [2] [3]

Under the Rent Act (and later amendments under the Housing Act 1998), protected tenants could pass on their tenancy to spouses or cohabiting family members upon their death. The claimant in this case, Martin Fitzpatrick, had lived with his partner John Thompson from 1976 until his death in 1994, having met in 1969. Thompson had rented the flat from 1972 onwards. The law allows for succession in a tenancy agreement for spouses, those "living with him or her as a husband or wife", and members of one's family who have resided in the flat for at least two years before the tenant's death. The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Fitzpatrick's initial appeal, citing the precedent of Harrogate Borough Council v Simpson where the Court of Appeal determined that "living together as husband and wife" did not extend to a homosexual couple. The Court of Appeal decision expressed considerable sympathy for the appellant, citing his selfless dedication to caring for his partner for many years, but stated that it was the job of Parliament to change the law to extend protected tenancy succession rights to same-sex couples. [4]

The House of Lords allowed that the appellant and his partner did constitute a family for legal purposes. The Lords decision agreed that there was not a spousal relationship (which they interpreted to mean a heterosexual marriage), nor were they "living together as a husband or wife" (which they interpreted as providing protection only for unmarried heterosexual couples), but stated that a long-term same-sex relationship could be considered a family even without the ties of blood or marriage. [5] The decision was welcomed by gay rights campaigners including the campaign group Stonewall.

See also

Related Research Articles

Common-law marriage, also known as non-ceremonial marriage, sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, de facto marriage, more uxorio or marriage by habit and repute, is a marriage that results from the parties' agreement to consider themselves married, followed by cohabitation, rather than through a statutorily defined process. Not all jurisdictions permit common law marriage, but will typically respect the validity of such a marriage lawfully entered in another state or country.

<i>Egan v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by the Supreme Court of Canada in the second quarter of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Ontario</span>

Same-sex marriage has been unambiguously legal in Ontario since June 10, 2003. The first legal same-sex marriages performed in Ontario were of Kevin Bourassa to Joe Varnell, and Elaine Vautour to Anne Vautour, by Reverend Brent Hawkes on January 14, 2001. The legality of the marriages was questioned and they were not registered until after June 10, 2003, when the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Halpern v Canada (AG) upheld a lower court ruling which declared that defining marriage in heterosexual-only terms violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Poland does not legally recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have limited legal rights with regard to the tenancy of a shared household. A few laws also guarantee certain limited rights to cohabiting couples, including same-sex couples. Same-sex spouses of European Union citizens also have access to residency rights under a June 2018 ruling from the European Court of Justice.

China does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. Since 1 October 2017, couples have been able to enter into guardianship agreements, offering partners some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care, death and funeral, property management, and maintenance of rights and interests. Attempts to legalise same-sex marriage in 2020 were unsuccessful, but polling suggests that support for same-sex marriage is rising in China.

<i>M v H</i> Supreme Court of Canada case on same-sex couples

M v H [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of cohabiting same-sex couples to equal treatment under the law. The court found that the definition of spouse in section 29 of Ontario's Family Law Act, which extended spousal support rights to unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex couples but not same-sex couples, was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal status of same-sex marriage</span>

The legal status of same-sex marriage has changed in recent years in numerous jurisdictions around the world. The current trends and consensus of political authorities and religions throughout the world are summarized in this article.

A mixed-orientation marriage is a marriage between partners of differing sexual orientations. The broader term is mixed-orientation relationship, sometimes shortened to MOR or MORE.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex relationship</span> Romantic or sexual relationship between people of the same sex

A same-sex relationship is a romantic or sexual relationship between people of the same sex. Same-sex marriage refers to the institutionalized recognition of such relationships in the form of a marriage; civil unions may exist in countries where same-sex marriage does not.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Hong Kong</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in Hong Kong may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

South Korea does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. On 21 February 2023, an appellate court ruled that government health insurance should offer spousal coverage to same-sex couples, the "first legal recognition of social benefits for same-sex couples" in South Korea. This was upheld by the Supreme Court of Korea on 19 July 2024.

The United States military formerly excluded gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians from service. In 1993, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a law instituting the policy commonly referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT), which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. Although there were isolated instances in which service personnel were met with limited success through lawsuits, efforts to end the ban on openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people serving either legislatively or through the courts initially proved unsuccessful.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

<i>Adams v. Howerton</i>

Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982) is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that the term "spouse" refers to an opposite-sex partner for the purposes of immigration law and that this definition met the standard at the time for rational basis review. It was the first U.S. lawsuit to seek recognition of a same-sex marriage by the federal government.

The topic of same-sex unions and military service concerns the government treatment or recognition of same-sex unions who may consist of at least one servicemember of a nation's military.

Until 2017, laws related to LGBTQ+ couples adopting children varied by state. Some states granted full adoption rights to same-sex couples, while others banned same-sex adoption or only allowed one partner in a same-sex relationship to adopt the biological child of the other.

The United States policy regarding same-sex immigration denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples based on several court decisions and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.

<i>Braschi v. Stahl Associates Co.</i>

Braschi v. Stahl Associates Co. was a 1989 New York Court of Appeals case that decided that the surviving partner of a same-sex relationship counted as "family" under New York law and was thus able to continue living in a rent controlled apartment belonging to the deceased partner.

Hong Kong does not recognise same-sex marriages or civil unions. However, same-sex couples are afforded limited legal rights as a result of several court decisions, including the right to apply for a spousal visa, spousal benefits for the partners of government employees, and guardianship rights and joint custody of children.

<i>Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza</i> 2004 UK House of Lords case


Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza is an important case in English human rights law and the interpretation of primary legislation under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was also considered an important family law case. The final appeal of the case was heard on 21 June 2004 and established that the definition of "spouse" in the Rent Act 1977 had to be interpreted to include couples in same-sex relationships in order to comply with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case is notable because the judges overturned their own earlier decision in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd, a near identical case where there was no human rights implication.

References

  1. ↑ "Landmark ruling for gay tenants". BBC News. 28 October 1999.
  2. ↑ "Gay partner 'entitled to keep flat of dead spouse'". The Guardian. 14 April 1999.
  3. ↑ Patricia Wynn Davies (9 June 1997). "Gay carer fights for right to home after partner dies". The Independent.
  4. ↑ Kate O'Hanlon (29 July 1997). "LAW REPORT: Homosexual partner has no right in protected tenancy". The Independent.
  5. ↑ Kate O'Hanlon (2 November 1999). "Law Report: Homosexual couple can be members of a family". The Independent.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.