Considering stepchildren in succession cases

Haneen Abdelrahman v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington (2025) EVCA Civ 1038

This case considered the rights of stepchildren and tenancy succession.  

The case concerned a property in Islington which had been let to Mr Seales as a secure tenant.  Prior to his death, Mr Seales had been in a ten-year relationship with Ms Patel. The couple had never married or entered into a civil partnership and maintained separate residences throughout their ten-year relationship. From 2018, Ms P’s daughter, Ms Abdelrahman (the Claimant in this matter) was residing at the Property with Mr S. 

Ms A had applied for succession in 2021 relying upon the Borough’s discretionary policy. The succession was initially refused with Islington stating that Ms A would not be considered a stepchild as Mr S and Ms P had never married.

Possession proceedings commenced and were defended by Ms A. In determining the claim, HHJ Bloom held that a stepchild should be defined as being a child of a person’s spouse by previous marriage or civil partnership. A possession order was therefore granted; along with permission to appeal. 

The appeal was pursued including arguments that the Court had failed to adopt a wider approach and should have considered that the relationship should not be defined by legal ties. Ms A also argued that the policy amounted to discrimination under articles 8 and 14 of the Convention on Human Rights.

The appeal was ultimately refused. The Court of Appeal considered dictionary definitions of stepchild, noting that the online Oxford dictionary relied upon by Ms A was ‘an outlier’ in not requiring there to have been a subsequent marriage. They also considered Islington’s discretionary policy and the closed categories of section 113 of the Housing Act 1985 which defines family members. The Court also determined that the County Court’s assessment of proportionality should stand, and that there had been no infringement of convention rights.