References: [1976] QB 319
Coram: Lord Denning MR, Roskill and Ormrod LJJ
Ratio: The court considered the nature and extent of the obligations of landlords of a building in multiple occupation to repair essential means of access.
Held: Lord Denning MR (dissenting) suggested that the court had power to imply a term if it was reasonable so to do, and held that the landlords were under an implied obligation to repair accordingly. Roskill and Ormrod LJJ held to the contrary. Roskill LJ said: ‘But I am afraid, with profound respect, I cannot agree with his view that it is open to us in this court at the present day to imply a term because subjectively or objectively we as individual judges think it will be reasonable so to do. It must be necessary, in order to make the contract work as well as reasonable so to do, before the court can write into a contract, as a matter of implication, some term which the parties have themselves, assumedly deliberately, omitted to do.’
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL (Bailii, [1976] UKHL 1, [1977] AC 239, [1976] 2 All ER 39)
The Court of Appeal had declined to imply into letting agreements for a building in multiple occupation, an obligation on a landlord to repair essential means of access to the building.
Held: The House rejected the suggestion of Lord Denning . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 13-Jul-17
Ref: 259562
The post Liverpool City Council v Irwin: CA 1976 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.