Key Facts and Legal Issues in Ghaidan V Godin-Mendoza

This article discusses the key facts and legal issues in the case of Ghaidan V Godin-Mendoza, including arguments made by the landlord's lawyer and Lord Nicholls' discussion on the word 'possible' as per the Human Rights Act 1998. It also examines whether the judges in the majority reached the right conclusion.

Constitutional and Administrative
and Law
1

Table of Contents
a.) The key facts and legal issues arising in the case of Ghaidan V Godin-Mendoza............3
b.) Different arguments the landlord’s lawyer put forward on his behalf and the way
household respond to them.....................................................................................................4
c,) Lord Nicholls discussion on the word possible as per the section 3 of the human right act
1998........................................................................................................................................4
d.) Judges in the majority reached the right conclusion or not...............................................5
Reference.........................................................................................................................................6
2

a.) The key facts and legal issues arising in the case of Ghaidan V Godin-Mendoza
Facts: The fact is that in 1983 Juan Godin Mendoza (JGM) who was the defendant and
Hugh Wallwyn James was his homosexual partner lived together in a house which become a
topic to the statutory tenancy which was approved as per the Rent act 1977. His homosexual
partner was dead in 2001 and Ahmad Ghaidan who was the landlord of the flat sue case against
Juan Godin Mendoza in the court for demanding the ownership of the flat .
As indicated by the given case of Ghaidan V Godin-Mendoza, defendant asserted that he
had prevailed to the constitutional tenure as the life partner of the expired, as per the
arrangements of Schedule 1, para 2 of the Rent act 1977. The court justified, constructing his
choice in light of Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999] 4 All ER 705 expressed
that a same-sex relationship was not comparable to a spousal relationship (Parkes, Mullis
Busuttil, and Scott, 2015).
The court of bid said that the case of fact isn't at all like those in Fitzpatrick as human right
act 1998 forced on the court a commitment to translate the Rent act 1977 as it is good with the
human right act and European convention on human rights (Spano, 2014). According to article
14, it is basic to guarantee that if Fitzpatrick has secured liberty from discrimination.
Key issues
As per the schedule 1, para 2 of the 1977 act the denotation of the spouse is the person who
lives with the original tenant like a spouse or partner notwithstanding of marital. The life partner
of the expired could prevail in a constitutional tenure if existing in the flat with the lifeless past
to his demise (Donnelly and Whelan, 2017). JGM who was the partner of Hugh Wallwyn James
appealed that denotation of partner as per the act of 1977 applied to a homosexual couple. Along
with this understanding, the 1977 act for applying that heterosexual couple was discriminatory as
per the human right act 1998 schedule 1, part 1, article 14 and 8
The similarity of enactment with the Contract rights tumbles to be surveyed at the time
problems emerges for assurance under the Human Rights Act 1998, not as on the time when the
enactment was authorized or came into drive (Stone, 2014).
3

b.) Different arguments the landlord’s lawyer put forward on his behalf and the way household
respond to them
Arguments that are made by Mr. Godin Mendoza for fulfilment it should include that contentions
based the degree of the optional region of judgment agreed to the law-making body lead no place
for this situation (Whish and Bailey, 2015). It can be noted from the case of the Wilson v First
County Trust Ltd (No 2) there is some primary responsibility of the parliament in order to decide
one of the best ways of deciding with community issues. The review is the part of the law of the
court. The further court can only have concluded at the time of from the lawmaking body just
when it is clear that the council has connected inadequate significance to a man's Convention
rights (Longo and Vagni, 2018). The preparation of the court to withdraw from the perspective
of the council relies on the topic of the enactment and of the objection.
c,) Lord Nicholls discussion on the word possible as per the human right act 1998 section 3
According to the given case, Lord Nicholls explained the work possible from section 3 of
the human right act 1998. The human right act is one of the fundamental means through which
tradition right are brought into the law of this nation. (Hibar, Stein and Aribisala, 2015).
Parliament has proclaimed that all order, existing and future, may be deciphered in a
particular way. Along these lines, all the enactment ought to be perused and given an impact in
such a which is immaculate with the Convention rights and it is so far as for doing as such.
Henceforth it is the desire of the parliament which is reflected in section 3 the courts must
offer effect to this point. Unfortunately, in influencing this provision for the translation of
enactment, to section 3 itself isn't free from uncertainty. Section is accessible to more than one
illustration. In the word conceivable trouble lie between it, Section 3 (1) in combination with
section 3 (2) and one matter become clear as per the section 4. .
Parliament explicitly visualized that all enactment is not capable would be fit for being made
Convention-agreeable by utilization of section 3 (Parkes, Mullis and Scott, 2015). Aside from
this one reasonable translation of the word conceivable is can be limited from the section 3 for
the needed court to resolve uncertainties. It is interpreted that section 3 can provide a
comparatively narrow scope. Presently it is by and large acknowledged that the use of section 3
does not rely upon the nearness of vagueness in the enactment which is being deciphered.
.
4

However, if it is constructed rendering to the usual principle of explanation then meaning of
legislature can be admitted without any doubt it is clear from the case of Lordships' House in R v
A, Litster v Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co Ltd and Pickstone v Freemans plc.
d.) Judges in the majority reached the right conclusion or not.
In coming to a conclusion Lord Bingham had respect for the outstanding expressions of
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in which pertinent refinement was drawn. Along these lines,
whatever is finished by the method for understanding then it ought to be finished by the court
and any other individual who can be influenced by the enactment in the court. It was in the
context that lord of hope expressed the view which is provided in section 1 AC 45, 87 para that is
conceivable with the utilization of segment to achieve the similarity with tradition rights
(Donnelly and Whelan, 2017). Along these lines, the enactment contains arrangements which
explicitly reject the importance which the establishment would need to be given to make it good"
or, in fact, if the enactment contains arrangements which do as such by vital ramifications.
Subsequently concurred with the choice of Judges yet it can't be expressed that an arrangement
can be perused similarity with the convention as deprived of denying any of the code which is
preserves or the principle of the legislation. Apart from this, the unequal treatment is the reverse
as per the national behavior. Discrimination which is done due to the sexual orientation is wrong
and it should be permissible to live together same sex person as a couple.
From the above report it is concluded that Para 2(2) of the RA 1977 required to developed with
including the person in same sex relationship. The words which represent as his spouse or her
partner should be reason to the mean that for obey with article 8 and it should be defend the level
of safety of tenancy which is appreciated by the partner further it is conclude that s per the article
14 ECHR is impermissible to do discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Be that as it
may, it is the positive commitment of the state for advancing the qualities which is ensured by
the article 8.
5

Reference
Donnelly, J. and Whelan, D.J., 2017. International human rights. Hachette UK.
Hibar, D.P., Stein, J.L., Renteria, M.E., Arias-Vasquez, A., Desrivières, S., Jahanshad, N., Toro,
R., Wittfeld, K., Abramovic, L., Andersson, M. and Aribisala, B.S., 2015. Common
genetic variants influence human subcortical brain structures. Nature, 520(7546), pp.224-
229.
Longo, E. and Vagni, L., 2018. The Balance Between Patients’ Choice and Economic
Constraints in the Use of TCM Therapies: Two European Cases. World Scientific Book
Chapters, pp.257-272.
Parkes, R., Mullis, A., Busuttil, G., Speker, A. and Scott, A., 2015. Gatley on libel and slander.
Sweet & Maxwell.
Spano, R., 2014. Universality or Diversity of Human Rights?†: Strasbourg in the Age of
Subsidiarity. Human Rights Law Review, 14(3), pp.487-502.
Stone, R., 2014. Textbook on civil liberties and human rights. Oxford University Press, USA.
Whish, R. and Bailey, D., 2015. Competition law. Oxford University Press, USA.
6