(R)evolution in Family Law Relationships
| Date | 01 March 2000 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X0000700101 |
| Published date | 01 March 2000 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
(R)evolution in Family Law Relationships
Family law is now undergoing the most profound change ever. A consideration of the
developments in one country alone can lead the observer to believe that one is
concerned with rather marginal adjustments, or, if not marginal then totally eccentric
development unlikely to have effect outside the country concerned. However a view
from one country is misleading. An overview of the developments world-wide reveal
that the most basic building stone of our social structure and of our family law is
transforming, with far-reaching consequences for law in general.
On 28th October 1999 the House of Lords passed a milestone in Fitzpatrick vSterling
Housing
Association Ltd. 1Mr John Thompson was the original tenant of a flat in West
London. Mr Martin Fitzpatrick lived in the flat together with Mr Thompson. The
closeness of their relationship is illustrated poignantly by the events of the last eight
years of Mr Thompson's life. In 1986 Mr Thompson fell down the stairs and sustained
a blood clot. He went into a coma for some months and when he came round never
spoke again. For eight years Mr Fitzpatrick cared for Mr Thompson, until he died in
1994. Shortly thereafter the defendant, who was the landlord of the flat, sought to evict
Mr Fitzpatrick on the grounds that he was not the tenant and not otherwise entitled to
Rent Act protection. The Rent Act 1977, as amended by the Housing Act 1988,
provided in Schedule 1 that certain persons would become statutory tenants after the
death of the original tenant. Schedule 1 mentions: (1) the surviving spouse; (2) aperson
living with the tenant as his or her wife or husband; (3) a person who was a member
of the tenant's original family residing in the dwelling-house at the time of and for a
period of two years immediately before his death. The question to be decided was: was
Mr Fitzpatrick a person living with the original tenant as his 'husband or wife' under
the secondparagraph, or a 'member of his family' under the third paragraph, or neither
of the two? The House of Lords held that the parliamentary history of the phrase in
paragraph (2) revealed that the terms used were gender specific and therefore not
capable of applying to ahomosexual couple. But three of the five Law Lords held that
the purpose of the provision was to protect those who had shared their lives with the
1. [1999] 3 W.L.R. 1113.
7MJ 1 (2000) 1
To continue reading
Request your trial