## Facts

- A tenant held a statutory tenancy of a London flat under the Rent Act 1977.
- The tenant lived with his partner in a stable, monogamous same-sex relationship.
- After the tenant died, the surviving partner remained in occupation.
- The landlord sought possession, arguing the survivor could not qualify as a “spouse” or a person living “as his or her wife or husband” for statutory tenancy succession under Schedule 1, paragraph 2 of the Rent Act 1977.
- The county court held the survivor did not qualify under paragraph 2 but did succeed to a lesser tenancy under the “family member” provision in paragraph 3.
- The Court of Appeal, applying Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) § 3, construed paragraph 2 to include same-sex partners and granted the survivor statutory tenancy succession.
- The landlord appealed to the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether, under HRA § 3, Schedule 1, paragraph 2(2) of the Rent Act 1977 must be interpreted to treat a committed same-sex partner as living “as his or her wife or husband” for statutory tenancy succession.
2. Whether excluding same-sex partners from paragraph 2 succession constitutes unjustified discrimination contrary to ECHR Article 14 read with Article 8.
3. What limits constrain a court’s power under HRA § 3, and when a declaration of incompatibility under HRA § 4 is required.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the landlord’s appeal by a majority.
- The majority held that paragraph 2(2) must be read and given effect under HRA § 3(1) so that a surviving same-sex partner in a stable, committed relationship is treated as qualifying under the “wife or husband” formula.
- On the ordinary reading that excluded same-sex partners, the provision produced discrimination based solely on sexual orientation within the ambit of Article 8; no sufficient justification was shown under Article 14.
- The majority concluded the inclusive reading did not contradict the Rent Act’s fundamental features and therefore stayed within the permissible scope of HRA § 3.
- In dissent, one Law Lord argued the statutory language necessarily assumed opposite-sex cohabitation and that extending it to same-sex partners was judicial amendment; the proper remedy would be a declaration of incompatibility.

## Legal Principles

- HRA § 3 requires courts to interpret legislation, so far as possible, compatibly with Convention rights, even where this departs from the statute’s ordinary or apparently clear meaning.
- Under HRA § 3, courts may “read in” or adjust statutory language to secure Convention compliance, but not in a manner inconsistent with the statute’s fundamental features or underlying policy.
- Tenancy succession rules affecting continued occupation of a home fall within the ambit of ECHR Article 8, thereby engaging Article 14 where differential treatment occurs.
- Differential treatment based on sexual orientation requires particularly strong justification; where none exists, exclusion from a statutory benefit constitutes unjustified discrimination under Article 14 read with Article 8.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that Rent Act 1977 statutory tenancy succession must be interpreted under HRA § 3 to include surviving same-sex partners in stable, committed relationships, because excluding them was unjustified discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, and the interpretation did not alter the statute’s fundamental policy.


Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza, [2004] UKHL 30 (H.L. 2004)