- Court of Appeal implies a term that landlord responsible for the safety of electrics in premises (J N Hipwell v Szurek)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What were the issues involved?
- What was the background?
- What were the legal principles involved?
- Implied term – business efficacy
- Effect of entire agreement provisions
- What did the Court of Appeal decide?
- Why did the Court of Appeal decide that a term should be implied?
- Case details
Property analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a term should be implied into a lease that the landlord was responsible for the safety of the electrical installations, in order to give business efficacy to the lease. It was common ground that an entire agreement clause does not prevent the implication of such a term.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial