Legal Case Summary
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1976] UKHL 1; [1977] AC 239; [1976] 2 All ER 39
Landlord and tenant; whether implied obligation on landlord to repair common parts
Facts
The Irwins were council tenants of a flat in a high rise building owned by Liverpool City Council (LCC). They withheld their rent in protest regarding conditions in the common parts and in their maisonette. The conditions included defective lifts, unlit staircases and an overflowing water cistern. LCC sought possession, and the Irwins counterclaimed for breach of duty to maintain the common parts of the building. They also claimed breach of the statutory repairing obligation under section 32 of the Housing Act 1961 in relation to defects inside the maisonette.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
LCC denied the existence of a duty because there was no formal written tenancy agreement in place containing a term regarding a duty to maintain the common parts. As there was only a document detailing the obligations of the tenants under the agreement, LCC contended there were no obligations incumbent upon them in relation to the common parts. The Irwins argued that where a tenancy agreement is silent as to the maintenance of the common parts of a multi storey tower block, there is an implied term that the landlord should maintain them. The tenants argued the contract would be wholly unreasonable without such a term and, therefore, the duty should be implied into the tenancy agreement.
Decision / Outcome
The tenancy agreement was held to be incomplete because it only contained unilateral obligations of the tenants. In this kind of multi-occupation letting, there was an implied term that the landlord should take reasonable care to keep the common parts in reasonable repair and usable. The obligation arose from what the nature of the tenancy necessarily required; it was not enough that a proposed term would merely be reasonable. However, a failure to take reasonable care had not been established on the evidence and pleadings. The tenants had pleaded an absolute duty, and the poor condition of the facilities did not itself prove breach of the more limited obligation. Their appeal therefore failed on the common-parts claim.
The appeal succeeded in relation to the lavatory cistern under section 32(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1961. It either overflowed and caused flooding or, when adjusted to prevent this, failed to flush properly. The council had not kept it in proper working order. The Lords awarded £5 damages for this statutory breach.
