The recent case decision of J N Hipwell & Son v Szurek  EWCA Civ 674 is interesting in that it implied a covenant on the part of the landlord to keep the electrical installation serving the premises safe and the subject of a current electrical safety certificate.
The Court was prepared to imply the term notwithstanding the Lease containing an entire agreement clause intended to excluded matters that were not expressly contained in the drafting.
The case is a good reminder that landlords and investors should not feel safe with poorly drafted leases that ignore the allocation of responsibility for key elements of the premises between landlord and tenant. It is also a reminder of it is good practice for landlords to draw any known defects in the premises to the tenant's attention, or at least clarify that the tenant is wholly responsible for satisfying itself as to premises condition.
Extract from the Court report is referred to.
Against this background, the covenant by the Appellant landlord which I consider should be implied is as follows: "that the electrical installation which serves the Premises (including all wires, ducts, cables conduits or other channels through which electricity is conveyed) is safe and the subject of a current Electrical Safety Certificate". It is of course of comfort that this was indeed the understanding of the parties, on which they in fact acted. But the obligation is imposed, not by their agreement but by process of necessary implication or interpolation, to which (it is conceded) the Entire Agreement Provisions have no application. That is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. However, I should address the other matters raised, for comprehensiveness and in light of the contentions based on serious procedural irregularity.