Impact On Human Rights Act 1998

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1988 says that as far as possible to do so legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, this approach applies where one of the convention rights is in issue but it does not apply otherwise.

the Landlord (claimant) wished to evict the Tenant from his property. However, D argued that he was a ‘statutory tenant’ within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.

The Act stated that he would enjoy legal immunity from eviction if he is a surviving spouse of the original tenant and they resided in the premises before the original tenant’s death. Thus, he would have been straight forwardly considered as statutory tenant.

However, the problematic issue was that the tenant was in a homosexual couple.

Issues and analysis in judgement:

Lord Nichols observed that focusing on natural meaning of the provision that implied the words such as ‘spouse’, ‘husband’, ‘wife’, did not cover the case of homosexual couple.

The second question was whether it infringes convention rights?

The third issue was whether it was possible, pursuant to section 3 of the HRA, to give effect to the relevant provisions of domestic law and not infringe convention rights in the same time?

Held: In conclusion, the majority held that the provision conferred protection upon those who were the surviving partners of stable, close relationships. This brought same-sex partners within the same scope of the protection afforded by the act.

Moreover, it was held that it infringes Article 8 and Article 14 of the ECHR. Art 8 requires respect for a person’s home. It does not prohibit landlords to evict tenants. However, the landlord could not have done this if the D had been regarded as a ‘statutory tenant’ in an opposite-sex relationship. This factor made Article 14 relevant. Therefore, enjoyment of other rights under ECHR ‘shall be secured without discrimination’ including sexual orientation.

Finally, Lord Nichols argued that section 3 permits courts to read words into a statutory text to change its meaning to make it convention compliant. However, he did not consider the s.3 power as unlimited.