In this appeal case, the relationship between a private tenant and potential successor was that of two men; and so upon the death of the elder partner, it was found that despite their twenty-year history and the deeply caring bonds between them, the wording of the Housing Act 1988 prevented the surviving party from inheriting the assured tenancy, and thereby remaining in occupation of the home they had once shared.
Due to the widening of interpretation concerning the proximity required to uphold succession, it had become possible to appeal against the original judgment; while on this occasion, the appellant relied upon paragraphs 2(1) and 3 of the 1988 Act.
The first of these placed importance on the spousal aspect of relationships (which relied upon the assumption that the two parties were of opposite genders); while the second, extended the right to succeed where those in occupancy at the time of the other’s death, could prove that their living arrangements (over a minimum two-year period) fell under the scope of ‘family’.
The issue presented to the House of Lords was not one of spousal qualification, but rather agreement that despite the non-traditional relationship between the two men, there did exist an intimacy that by all accounts, could be construed as familial.
And so, after deliberate examination of both the statute’s breadth and a widening cultural shift towards the definition of ‘family’, prevailing judicial opinion upheld the appeal and allowed the appellant to enjoy the home shared with his partner in the years before and leading up to his passing, while the court reminded the parties that:
“[T]wo people of the same sex can be regarded as having established membership of a family, one of the most significant of human relationships which both gives benefits and imposes obligations.”