In international law, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham is deemed as an internal organ of the state, an organ of the central government of the state and as a territorial unit of the sovereign State, in this case the term “state” is referred to the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

In the law of human Rights, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham is a local authority defined as a public authority under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The said public authority manages numerous properties in the borough through a subsidiary entity referred to as “Hammersmith & Fulham Homes Limited” one of which is occupied by Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz situate at 44 Crefeld Close, Hammersmith, London W6 8EL [“The property”]. The said public authority has unlimited resources, residual income and lots of money it receives from “Council tax payments” [Public Funds] from which public funds the local authority has used to pay for the initiation of a discriminatory possession claim against Mr. Ciechanowicz in order to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home like a dog onto the street.

Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz is a white middle aged gay man, a widow and a surviving spouse of a homosexual marriage-like relationship with the deceased partner and the secure tenant of the property].

Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz is a Polish national who does not speak, read, write or communicate in English. As of 1st May 2004, the Republic of Poland [the accession state] became a full member of the European Union [“EU”] gaining the same rights as the rights of membership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain of the EU, which as a state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain is also a full member of the EU. This enlargement of state EU membership provides for citizens of new member state countries to freely come to the United Kingdom and settle and by means of reciprocity vice versa for UK citizens to freely come to the new EU member states and settle.

The Facts

The premises situate at 44 Crefeld Close, London W6 8EL [“The Property”] were let to Mr. Philip Sexton (deceased – “the tenant”) under a Secure Tenancy entered into between Mr. Philip Sexton and the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham which begun on 15th November 2004.

In January 2005 (some two months later) Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz moved into the property and commenced occupation of the property in co-habitation with Mr. Sexton, as Mr. Sexton’s lover and co-habiting homosexual partner.

In February 2006 Mr. Philip Sexton [the principle tenant] formally assigned a Deed of Assignment of his Secure Tenancy at Willesden County Court to Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz in the event of Mr. Sexton’s absence, death or sickness, citing, inter alia, s.89 of the Housing Act 1985, the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 decided by the Law Lords in the House of Lords and the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

On 20th February 2007, Mr. Sexton died at Charing Cross hospital.

Mr. Ciechanowicz is the surviving partner of the “marriage-like”relationship with the principle homosexual tenant [the deceased Mr. Philip Sexton] and as such Mr. Ciechanowicz is the Successor of the existing secure tenancy.

In March and April of 2007, Nana Ababio, an employee of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham had sex discriminated Mr. Ciechanowicz by treating Mr. Ciechanowicz as an illegal occupier of the property rather than as the surviving spouse of the homosexual relationship with Mr. Sexton [the deceased tenant.

This discrimination of Mr. Ciechanowicz by an employee of the local authority [Nana Ababio] is set out in express terms where Nana Ababio had written a memo dated 19th March 2007. “Deal with illegal occupant”

Nana Ababio, the employee of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham then referred the matter to the Legal Services of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

This form of sex discrimination was the genesis of the Local Authority issuing possession proceedings at West London County Court seeking to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home.

On 22nd January 2008 possession proceedings were initiated in the West London County Court against Mr. Henryk Ciechanowicz litigated by Omowunmi Emmanuell, a litigation lawyer in the employment of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and under the supervision of Michael Cogher (Head of Legal Services of the London borough of Hammersmith & Fulham). The Claim for Possession together with the Particulars of Claim for Possession was made in the name of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.

The intention and the aim of the proceedings are designed to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home on a false premise that he is some form of illegal occupant.

The Ground for Possession purporting to justify in law the eviction of Mr.Ciechanowicz is set out as: “The tenant died on the 20th February 2007. The Defendant has no right of occupation of the property”

Yet the difference between an illegal occupant and a surviving gay widow spouse of a homosexual relationship is vast.

Mr. Ciechanowicz does not understand, write, read or speak in English and the Possession proceedings against him at West London County Court on 17th March 2008 lasted no more than 5 minutes, with an erroneous possession order made against him by DJ Ryan.

Case Law

The Deed of Assignment of Mr. Sexton assigning his Secure Tenancy to Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz at Willesden County Court in the event of Mr. Sexton’s death referred to, inter alia, to the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 decided by the Law Lords in the House of Lords.

The case of Ghaidan v Mendoza first came before the West London County Court when the Claimant landlord, a private landlord, Mr. Ahmad Ghaidan brought possession proceedings against Mr. Juan Godin-Mendoza in the West London County Court claiming possession of Mr. Mendoza’s flat. Judge Cowell [sitting at West London County Court] held that on the death of Hugh Wallwyn-James (the deceased homosexual partner of Mr. Godin-Mendoza) Mr. Mendoza did become entitled to an assured tenancy of the flat by succession as a member of the original tenant's 'family'.

The case of (Ghaidan v Mendoza) was initiated in the West London County Court after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2nd October 2000 but before the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2006 even existed as an Act of Parliament, the finding by West London County Court conceding that Mr. Mendoza did become entitled to an Assured tenancy. This decision was at a time before the House of Lords had subsequently held in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 that Mr. Mendoza was indeed entitled to a secure tenancy.

The House of Lords in the United Kingdom had subsequently re affirmed the right to succession of a secure tenancy in the more recent case of Birmingham City Council v Walker (FC) [2007] UKHL 22 (May 2007)

Therefore in respect of possession proceedings brought against Mr. Henryk Ciechanowicz by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, the proceedings are discriminatory and devoid of merit for they are brought (i) after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, (ii) after the ruling by the House of Lords in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557, (iii) after the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force (giving homosexual couples the right to succession of tenancy) (iv) after Part 3 of the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act (Sexual orientation) Regulations 2007 – discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and (v) after the ruling by the House of Lords in Birmingham City Council v Walker (FC) [2007] UKHL 22 (May 2007) notwithstanding s.89 of the Housing Act 1985. Substantial claim to sex discrimination

There is a straight forward, provable and answerable claim of sex discrimination instigated by an employee [Nana Ababio] in the employment of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham against Mr. Henryk Ciechanowicz.

The comparator of sex discrimination is also found in the case of EL AL Israel Airlines v Danielowitz HCJ 721/94 where the Supreme Court of Israel in Jerusalem sat as the High Court of Justice on 30th November 1994 found that not giving the Respondent Jonathan Danielowitz (employed by EL AL Israel Airlines as a flight attendant) a free airline ticket for his same sex companion amounted to discrimination since a distinction on the basis of the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship is found unjustified. This judgment from a common law jurisdiction was subsequently echoed by the Law Lords in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom in the case of Ghaidan v Mendoza heard before the House of Lords in 2004.

On a scale of severity, sex discrimination being applied by a public authority in seeking to evict a homosexual man from his home in order to make him homeless and subject him to eternal detriment is far more severe than an airline refusing a homosexual man the right to a free airline ticket because the consequence of an action resulting in the eviction of a person from his home has greater, more profound and devastating results (such as permanent homelessness) whereas the refusal by an airline to grant a free ticket to a homosexual man (de facto) is a mere inconvenience. Yet it was found that refusing to grant a free airline ticket to a homosexual man amounted to sex discrimination.

Mr. Henry Ciechanowicz the Polish gay partner of the deceased Mr. Sexton was severely distraught and suffered nervous convulsions, trauma, continuing anxiety, depression, emotional disorders, eating disorders and stress as some of the many adverse effects brought about by the emotional effects of bereavement and eternal loss of Mr. Ciechanowicz’s gay partner.

The subsequent actions of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham against Mr. Ciechanowicz seeking to evict Mr. Ciechanowicz from his home so soon after the eternal loss of Mr. Ciechanowicz’s gay partner and the emotional effects of bereavement caused by the death had compounded Mr. Ciechanowicz’s mental anguish in a way defined as torture as set out under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This is in reliance to the inter state case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom (1978) where the ECHR referred to non physical torture, describing ‘the infliction of mental suffering by creating a state of anguish and stress by means other than bodily assault’. From this judgment (Ireland v United Kingdom 1978), it is deemed that mental anguish alone constitutes torture if it reaches a certain level of severity.

The concept of torture being invoked under Article 3 due to amplified mental anguish greatly increases the threshold of damages sought by Mr. Ciechanowicz from the London Borough if Hammersmith & Fulham.