## Facts

- Juan Godin-Mendoza (G) lived with his same-sex partner, Hugh Wallwyn-James, in a flat let to Wallwyn-James under a statutory tenancy governed by the Rent Act 1977.
- After Wallwyn-James' death, the landlord, Ahmad Ghaidan, sought possession of the flat.
- Godin-Mendoza claimed entitlement to succeed to the statutory tenancy, invoking the Rent Act provision for a “spouse” of the deceased tenant.
- The Rent Act 1977, Schedule 1, paragraph 2(2), defined a spouse as “a person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband,” which had been interpreted as applying only to heterosexual couples.
- The County Court held this definition excluded same-sex partners, denying Godin-Mendoza’s claim.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Rent Act should be interpreted compatibly with the ECHR, considering that restricting tenancy succession to heterosexual couples would violate Article 14 (non-discrimination), in conjunction with Article 8 (right to family and private life).
- The Court of Appeal held that the rights of same-sex couples must be recognized under the Act, contrary to the earlier position in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd.
- The landlord appealed to the House of Lords, raising questions about the scope of courts’ interpretive powers under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

## Issues

1. Whether section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to interpret the Rent Act 1977 so as to extend the definition of “spouse” to same-sex partners.
2. Whether a restrictive definition of “spouse” constitutes discrimination contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. What limits exist to the courts' power under section 3 to reinterpret primary legislation for Convention compliance.

## Decision

- The House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, extending the meaning of “spouse” in the Rent Act 1977 to include same-sex partners.
- Lord Nicholls stated that section 3 of the HRA allows courts to depart from the unambiguous meaning of legislation, including by reading words in or out, to ensure compatibility with Convention rights.
- The court found that the social policy behind the Rent Act—protection of housing rights for long-term partners—did not require a distinction based on sexual orientation.
- The previous, more restrictive approach in Fitzpatrick was overruled, and the tenancy succession rights were extended to Godin-Mendoza as the surviving same-sex partner.

## Legal Principles

- Section 3 of the HRA imposes a strong obligation to interpret domestic legislation, where possible, in a manner compatible with Convention rights, even if this requires reading words into or out of the statute.
- The obligation under section 3 is not limited to resolving ambiguities but can require courts to depart from the ordinary and unambiguous meaning to secure Convention compliance.
- Limits to section 3 interpretation exist; courts cannot change the fundamental features or core scheme of legislation, make constitutionally inappropriate policy choices, or introduce changes with substantial practical consequences outside the judicial remit.
- Section 4 of the HRA allows for declarations of incompatibility if compatible interpretation is not possible, but does not affect the validity of legislation and places the onus of remedy on Parliament.
- Judicial interpretation under section 3 must not undermine separation of powers or parliamentary sovereignty.

## Conclusion

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza establishes that section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 empowers courts to interpret domestic legislation in a Convention-compatible way, extending statutory protections—such as tenancy succession rights—to same-sex partners, provided that such interpretation does not undermine the essence of the legislative scheme or venture into prohibited judicial lawmaking.


Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30