## Facts

- Mr. Fitzpatrick sought to inherit the statutory tenancy of his deceased same-sex partner under the Rent Act 1977.
- The couple had cohabited for a significant period, sharing lives characterized by mutual dependence, care, and affection.
- The Rent Act 1977 provided succession rights to a “spouse” or “member of the family” of the deceased tenant.
- At the time, same-sex relationships were not legally recognized as equivalent to marriage for the Act’s purposes.
- The House of Lords was called to determine whether a same-sex partner could qualify as a “spouse” or “family member” for tenancy succession under the Act.

## Issues

1. Whether a same-sex partner could qualify as a “spouse” for succession to a statutory tenancy under the Rent Act 1977.
2. Whether a same-sex partner could be considered a “member of the family” for the purposes of statutory tenancy succession.
3. Whether the pre-Human Rights Act interpretation of the Rent Act was compatible with evolving notions of family and human rights legislation.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the term “spouse” in the Rent Act 1977 did not include same-sex partners, reflecting Parliament’s intent at the time of enactment.
- The court determined that, despite evidence of a familial relationship, Mr. Fitzpatrick did not fall within the statutory definition of “family member” as then understood.
- The decision was made prior to the Human Rights Act 1998, so Convention rights could not be directly relied upon to interpret the statute differently.
- The ruling demonstrated the limitations of statutory interpretation before the Human Rights Act, emphasizing a restrictive approach guided by parliamentary sovereignty.

## Legal Principles

- Succession rights under the Rent Act 1977 are tightly defined by statutory language, principally limited to spouses and family members in the conventional sense.
- Pre-Human Rights Act judicial interpretation prioritized parliamentary intent and literal statutory meaning over evolving societal values.
- The Human Rights Act 1998 subsequently required courts to interpret legislation compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, notably Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for family life), where possible.
- Later case law, including Ghadian v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, showed how domestic law interpretation shifted under the HRA to allow same-sex partners to be recognized for succession rights.
- The development of domestic privacy rights and a broader understanding of “family” followed from subsequent court decisions and ECtHR jurisprudence.

## Conclusion

Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Assn demonstrates the constraints on statutory interpretation prior to the Human Rights Act 1998, with the House of Lords strictly limiting tenancy succession rights to traditional family definitions. The case marks the contrast between earlier judicial approaches and the post-HRA environment, in which courts increasingly interpret legislation to accommodate evolving understandings of family and human rights.

Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Assn [2001] AC 47