Assured tenancy — Succession Same-sex couple — Possession claim by landlord — Defence and appeal based upon entitlement to succeed to tenancy after death of assured tenant — Test of spousal relationship — Appeal dismissed
The respondent was the landlord of a flat of which R held an assured tenancy. The appellant had been engaged in an intermittent homosexual relationship with R for two years prior to R’s death. He had moved into R’s flat almost immediately after meeting him, but, shortly afterwards, R had consulted a solicitor because he felt that the relationship was over and he wished the appellant to move out. R brought proceedings, and a non-molestation order was granted against the appellant in the following year. The order required him to leave the flat, where he was still living, and to cease his violent behaviour towards R. The appellant disobeyed the order and was committed to prison. On his release, he returned to live with R. The latter applied for, and was granted, a tenancy transfer to another flat. In the course of negotiations with the respondent, R indicated that he intended to live in the new flat by himself.
R subsequently died from the effects of alcoholism. The respondent brought possession proceedings against the appellant in respect of the flat. The appellant maintained that he was entitled to succeed to the assured tenancy as R’s spouse under section 17 of the Housing Act 1988. The recorder found that the appellant was not R’s spouse, and granted a possession order accordingly. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The fact that a couple had set up home together was not necessarily indicative of a “spousal” relationship. Without a lifetime commitment, at least at some point in the relationship, there could be no sufficient similarity to marriage. The appropriate test was whether the relationship had been an emotional one entailing a lifetime commitment, rather than one of convenience, friendship, companionship or the living together of lovers, and it was subject to the qualification that the relationship should be openly and unequivocally displayed to the outside world. The recorder had been entitled to find that the appellant’s relationship with the deceased lacked sufficient commitment to permanence: Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30; [2004] 27 EG 128 (CS) considered.
Gavin Argent (instructed by Arscotts) appeared for the appellant; Toby Vanhegan (instructed by Harris & Co) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
