Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza
United Kingdom House of Lords
(2004) UKHL 30 House of Lords (2004)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 1983, the landlord of a London apartment granted an oral residential tenancy to Mr. Hugh Wallwyn-James. Mr. Wallwyn-James resided in the apartment with Mr. Juan Godin-Mendoza (defendant), his romantic partner, until his death in January 2001. After his partner’s death, Mr. Godin-Mendoza continued living in the apartment. The landlord, Ahmad Ghaidan (plaintiff), filed suit in 2001 in the West London Court, seeking possession of the apartment. The West London Court found Godin-Mendoza did not succeed to tenancy of the apartment under Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the Rent Act 1977 as he was not Wallwyn-James’s spouse. However, the judge did find Godin-Mendoza was entitled to an assured tenancy of the apartment as a member of the original tenant’s family under Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 of the Rent Act 1977. Godin-Mendoza appealed the West London Court decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found Godin-Mendoza was entitled to succeed to a tenancy under Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the Rent Act 1977 to the Court of Appeals given the passage of the U.K. Human Rights Act 1998. Ghaidan then appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the House of Lords.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nicholls, J.)
Dissent (Millet, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.