Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]

1. Facts:

• Juan Godin-Mendoza (GM) sought to succeed to the tenancy of a flat he shared with his same-sex partner, who was the original tenant, after the partner’s death.

• Under the Rent Act 1977, statutory tenancy could be passed to a surviving spouse or a person who lived with the tenant “as his or her wife or husband.”

• The legal issue was whether this provision could be interpreted to include long-term same-sex partners, allowing GM to inherit the tenancy.

2. Outcome:

• The House of Lords, by a majority of 4 to 1, ruled in favour of GM, allowing him to succeed to the tenancy.

• The Lords held that the Rent Act 1977 should be read in light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.

• The phrase “as his or her wife or husband” was interpreted to include long-term same-sex partners, thereby extending the protections of the Rent Act to them.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• ECHR Influence: The decision demonstrates the significant impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on UK law. Lord Nicholls, speaking for the majority, emphasised that the courts have the authority to add or remove words from legislation to ensure compliance with the ECHR. This allowed for a more inclusive interpretation of the Rent Act that protected the rights of same-sex couples.

• Expansion of Rights: The ruling marked a major advancement in the recognition of same-sex relationships under UK law. By reading the term “as his or her wife or husband” to include same-sex partners, the House of Lords significantly expanded the legal rights and protections available to same-sex couples.

• Judicial Interpretation vs. Parliamentary Sovereignty: Lord Millett, in his dissent, warned that such judicial interpretations could breach the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. He argued that the courts were overstepping their role, which is to interpret law rather than to create it. Millett’s dissent highlights the ongoing tension between the judiciary’s role in ensuring laws comply with human rights standards and the principle that lawmaking should be the exclusive domain of Parliament.

• Legal Precedent: The decision in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza set an important legal precedent, reinforcing the power of the courts to interpret legislation in a way that aligns with human rights principles, even if it requires modifying the language of statutes. This case solidified the inclusion of same-sex couples within the scope of legal protections traditionally afforded only to heterosexual couples, paving the way for further legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights in the UK.