“Same-sex partners gain tenancy succession rights under human rights interpretation”
Mr Godin-Mendoza lived with his same-sex partner in a flat subject to a statutory tenancy. When his partner died, the landlord sought possession, arguing that only heterosexual partners could succeed as 'family members' under Schedule 1 of the Rent Act 1977. The Court of Appeal found in favour of Mr Godin-Mendoza using section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Whether the word 'spouse' in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1977 could be interpreted to include same-sex partners to ensure compatibility with Article 8 ECHR and Article 14 ECHR
The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the Rent Act 1977 should be interpreted to include same-sex partners within the meaning of 'spouse' to ensure compatibility with Convention rights
This case established important precedent for using section 3 HRA 1998 to reinterpret domestic legislation for human rights compatibility. It marked a significant advance in legal recognition of same-sex relationships before civil partnerships were introduced.
You're reading the free summary of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.