Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]

Facts: Rent Act 1977. If a tenant dies, his or her wife and husband shall be treated as the spouse of the original tenant. The section has been read to include cohabitating couples. Should this pass to protect same sex couples? Art 8 (private & family) & 14 (discrimination).

Issue : Whether a man living with a tenant in a homosexual relationship can be considered living with the tenant as "his ... wife or husband". Is this interpretation in line with parliamentary intention?

Held:Yes, this should pass to same sex couple to give effect to Art 8 & 14. “as if” added to the statutory language. “for the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the spouse of the original tenant”.

Impact of s3 - the obligation to interpret legislation in line with the HRA

• [25-36] (Lord Nicholls) : “unusual and far reaching character”. Recognised that court is nevertheless limited by Parliament intention.

• [44], [46] and [50] (Lord Steyn) : s3 is not a carte blanche. Court cannot give an interpretation that is “inconsistent with a fundamental feature of the legislation”. Lord Steyn in A v SoS for the Home Office (No 2) [2005] note that it might be justified adopt an interpretation “which linguistically may appear strained”

• [58-72] (Lord Millett) (Dissenting) Narrower reading. Could not be interpreted in the way majority judges did because that stretches the interpretation to a breaking point. “the court should take the language of the statute as it finds it and give it a meaning which, however unnatural or unreasonable, is intellectually defensible” [67] .“In my view section 3 does not entitle the court to supply words which are inconsistent with a fundamental feature of the legislative scheme; nor to repeal, delete, or contradict the language of the offending statute...[68]