Looks like an account to follow. A good summary of Ghaidan.
Incidentally, this is a classic example of one of the features of the HRA. By 2004, few would have queried that the surviving partner of a committed gay relationship should be treated no differently from the surviving partner of a committed straight relationship.
But this corner of the law hadn’t been updated to reflect that (by 2004 there weren’t many Rent Act tenancies left: Parliament had other things to do).
But the courts could use the broad statements of principle (family life; non-discrimination) laid down by Parliament in the HRA to achieve a result that met general standards of fairness and justice in 2004.
An illustration of the point that the alleged conflict between democracy and human rights, trumpeted by those hostile to the HRA, is (at best) greatly exaggerated.
