Duke of Westminster v Guild
The court will not imply into a lease an obligation on a landlord to repair a drain on its land used by the tenant, where the lease is a detailed document that does not provide for it.
Facts
Mr Guild was the tenant of premises under a lease from the Duke of Westminster. A drain that served the premises ran under the landlord's adjoining land, and it became blocked, causing damage to the tenant's premises. The tenant withheld rent, claiming that the landlord was under an implied obligation to repair the drain.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that there was no implied obligation on the landlord to repair the drain. Slade LJ said that the court will not readily imply terms into a lease that is a detailed, professionally drawn document dealing with the parties' obligations. There was no necessity to imply the term, because the tenant had a right to enter the landlord's land to repair the drain itself. The case was distinguished from Liverpool City Council v Irwin, where the contract was incomplete.
Related cases on leasehold covenants and forfeiture
- Akici v LR Butlin Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1296, [2006] 1 WLR 201
- Avonridge Property Co Ltd v Mashru [2005] UKHL 70, [2005] 1 WLR 3956
- Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494
- City of London Corporation v Fell [1994] 1 AC 458
- Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1
- Expert Clothing Service & Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd [1986] Ch 340
- Glass v Kencakes Ltd [1966] 1 QB 611
- Hussein v Mehlman [1992] 2 EGLR 87
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
