AsenoteGhaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] 3 A11 ER 411

The answers to these questions will make up your case-note assessed exercise. The marks allotted indicate the amount you are expected to write on each topic. The total should not exceed 1,000 words. Clarity and relevance merit more than the volume of words.

Do NOT quote more than a few words from the opinions of their Lordships and Ladyship. You must answer in your own words, paraphrasing where necessary. Any short quotes (no more than one line) must be accompanied by satisfactory references.

Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] 3 All ER 411

1. Explain the meaning of each part of the following citations:
[2004]UKHL30, [2003]2WLR 478.

2. Who was the claimant and what was he seeking and who was defendant and what did he seek?

3. Who was the judge and what was the decision at first instance?

4. In what ways does the decision of the House of Lords in Ghaidan v GodinMendoza [2004] 2 A.C. 557 differ from that in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27 ?

5, Explain which of the following facts you consider a?materiala, explaining, briefly, why they are or are not so?

i) That the defendant was a homosexual?

ii) That the defendant was not married.

iii) That the defendant and his late homosexual partner had lived together for at least ten years .

iv) That a cohabiting heterosexual partner was treated in the same way as a spouse?

6. How does Lord Nicholls justify the application of section 3 to this case?

7. What is meant by the expression a?the modified meaning remaining consistent with the fundamental features of the legislative schemea according to (a) Lord Nicholls and (b) Lord Millett?

8. Explain the reasoning of Baroness Hale in reaching her decision and to what extent does this differ from the other judges in the majority?

9. Explain the arguments advanced by Lord Millett that led him to dissent.

10. Do you consider that this decision is sound in constitutional terms or would a a?declaration of incompatibilitya under s. 4 have been more appropriate?