Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza

Last updated
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Full case name Ghaidan (Appellant) v. Godin-Mendoza (FC) (Respondent)
Decided4 June 2004 (2004-06-04)
Citations[2004] UKHL 30
[2004] 2 AC 557
[2004] 3 WLR 113
[2004] 3 All ER 411
[2004] 27 EGCS 128
[2004] UKHRR 827
16 BHRC 671
[2004] 2 FLR 600
[2004] NPC 100
[2004] 2 FCR 481
[2004] 2 P & CR DG17
[2004] Fam Law 641
Transcript HoL judgement
Case history
Appealed from[2001] EWCA Civ 1533
Case opinions
Decision byNicholls
ConcurrenceSteyn, Roger, Hale
DissentMillett


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. [1] It was also considered an important family law case. [2] 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. [1]

Contents

Background

Juan Godin-Mendoza had shared a flat with his partner Hugh Wallwyn-James since 1983. The flat was held by Wallwyn-James under a statutory tenancy which, under the terms of the Rent Act, would pass automatically to a spouse or partner in the event of his death. Following Wallwyn-James's death in 2001, the landlord, Ahmad Ghaidan, claimed possession of the flat.

The case was first heard at the County Court where the judge held that a same-sex relationship did not meet the definition of a spousal relationship and granted possession of the flat to the landlord. [1] At the Court of Appeal it was held that the Human Rights Act 1998 required the court to interpret the Rent Act in such a way as to make it compatible with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Referencing Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights the court determined that Godin-Mendoza was being discriminated against in comparison to a heterosexual couple and, as such, the Rent Act definition of "spouse" should be interpreted to apply also to same-sex couples. [1]

The landlord was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords.The appeal was heard by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Baroness Hale of Richmond who confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. [3]

The case established the precedent that section 3 of the Human Rights Act allows the court to "read in words" that change the meaning of primary legislation to make it compatible as long it is "compatible with the underlying thrust of the legislation being construed." [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense of Marriage Act</span> 1996 U.S. federal law, repealed in 2022

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

<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">Human Rights Act 1998</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

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

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Saskatchewan since November 5, 2004 as a result of a decision of the Family Law Division of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench. This decision followed similar cases in six other provinces and territories, and pre-dated by eight months the federal Civil Marriage Act of 2005, which made same-sex marriage available throughout Canada. Later court decisions have dealt with the issue of marriage commissioners who object to performing same-sex marriages on the basis of their religious beliefs.

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

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Newfoundland and Labrador since December 21, 2004, when the province was ordered by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. This decision followed similar cases in seven other provinces and territories, and pre-dated by seven months the federal Civil Marriage Act of 2005, which legalised same-sex marriage throughout Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador was the eighth jurisdiction in Canada and the eleventh in the world to legalise same-sex marriage.

<i>Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79, was a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage in Canada. The ruling was announced December 2004, following arguments made two months prior.

<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">Foundation for Equal Families</span>

The Foundation for Equal Families is a Canadian gay and lesbian rights group founded in 1994 following the failure of Bill 167 in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The group's mandate is "Dedicated to achieving recognition and equality for same sex relationships and associated family rights through education and legal action". Meeting this mandate was accomplished by intervening in various precedent-setting legal cases, through representation at various pride parades and most notably in suing the Canadian federal government over failure to amend 58 pieces of federal legislation that were charter-infringing due to the definition of spouse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

<i>R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis</i>

R v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence. In the case, a majority of the Supreme Court, including the Court's President Lord Phillips and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge reversed an earlier ruling of the High Court of Justice and found that the police force's policy of retaining DNA evidence in the absence of 'exceptional circumstances' was unlawful and a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court declined to offer any specific relief however, recognising that the policy is expected to be subject to legislative scrutiny as Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011.

<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.

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a provision of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 that requires courts to interpret both primary and subordinate legislation so that their provisions are compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, which are also part of the Human Rights Act 1998. This interpretation goes far beyond normal statutory interpretation, and includes past and future legislation, therefore preventing the Human Rights Act from being impliedly repealed by subsequent contradictory legislation.

Sections 4 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 are provisions that enable the Human Rights Act 1998 to take effect in the United Kingdom. Section 4 allows courts to issue a declaration of incompatibility where it is impossible to use section 3 to interpret primary or subordinate legislation so that their provisions are compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, which are also part of the Human Rights Act. In these cases, interpretation to comply may conflict with legislative intent. It is considered a measure of last resort. A range of superior courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility.

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.

Hyde v Hyde is a landmark case of the English Court of Probate and Divorce. The case was heard 20 March 1866 before Lord Penzance, and established the common law definition of marriage. The case clearly spelled out the characteristics of marriage, such as a voluntary union involving one woman and one man for life and 'to the exclusion of all others'. However, it fails to confine the “juristic” or constitutional idea of marriage, giving a broad definition of marriage.

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 or marriage.

Same-sex marriage is currently not recognised nor performed in Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory, but it was legal between 2017 and 2022. However, marriages performed during that period remain valid.

Same-sex marriage is currently not recognised in the Cayman Islands. The island's statutory law limits marriage to different-sex couples. A lawsuit with the Grand Court successfully challenged this ban in March 2019; however, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling in November 2019. Same-sex civil partnerships are legal following the enactment of the Civil Partnership Law, 2020 on 4 September 2020.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37 was heard by the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords on 26 May 2005 before Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, and Lord Carswell.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Van Zyl Smit, Jan. "The New Purposive Interpretation of Statutes: HRA Section 3 after Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza". Modern Law Review . 70 (2): 294–306. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2007.00638.x.
  2. Ryan, F (2005). "Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza". Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law . 27 (3): 355–368. doi:10.1080/09649060500387230.
  3. "Judgments - Ghaidan (Appellant) v. Godin-Mendoza (FC) (Respondent)". 21 June 2004. Retrieved 2024-11-07.
  4. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30 at para. 31, [2004] 2 AC 557, [2004] 3 WLR 113, [2004] 3 All ER 411, [2004] 27 EGCS 128, [2004] UKHRR 827, 16 BHRC 671, [2004] 2 FLR 600, [2004] NPC 100, [2004] 2 FCR 481, [2004] 2 P & CR DG17, [2004] Fam Law 641(21 June 2004)