Liverpool County Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239, HL
Implying a term including an obligation on the part of a council where tenancy agreement did not expressly stipulate any obligation
Facts
Liverpool City Council owned a block of flats in Everton, Liverpool, called “The Piggeries”. The defendant was a tenant in one of those flats. The common parts of those flats had fallen into disrepair and had also been vandalised; in addition the lifts in the building did not function, there were no lights on the stairs, the lavatory cisterns were blocked, as was the chute, and the cisterns also overflowed. The tenants organised to carry out a rent strike, refusing to pay rent until those issues were addressed by Liverpool City Council. The defendant took part in that strike. The Council started proceedings to evict the defendant for refusing to pay her rent. The defendant however started a counter claim against the Council for breach of its obligation to repair the communal properties. The tenancy agreement between the defendant and the council did not, however, state that the Council had any such obligation. No other obligations were imposed on the Council either, with the agreement imposing obligations solely on the tenant. The defendant asserted that the court should imply a term into the contract that the Council had a duty to repair the common parts of the building.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether it was possible to imply a term into the contract as the defendant was asking, even where the contract did not specifically impose any obligations on the Council. A further issue was whether the Council would be in breach of that duty even if it existed.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that it was possible to imply such a term into the contract, but that the Council was not in any event guilty of breaching it as the damage had been carried out by vandals. The residents also had a duty of care.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239 is a well-established House of Lords authority on implied terms in contract law, and the principles it established have not been overturned. The case remains good law as a leading example of terms implied in law (as distinct from terms implied in fact), and it continues to be cited in this capacity in subsequent case law and academic commentary.
Readers should be aware of one point of terminology: the article refers to the local authority as both ‘Liverpool County Council’ (in the title) and ‘Liverpool City Council’ (in the body). The correct name of the defendant in the reported case is Liverpool City Council, as reflected in the body of the article.
The broader legal framework on implied terms has been significantly clarified since 1977. In particular, the Supreme Court in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72 reaffirmed and refined the tests for implying terms in fact, confirming that the ‘business efficacy’ and ‘officious bystander’ tests remain the correct approach for that category, and expressly distinguishing them from terms implied in law of the kind at issue in Irwin. The decision in Irwin as a category of ‘terms implied in law’ was not disturbed by Marks and Spencer. Students should ensure they understand this distinction when using Irwin in written work.
