CA 12 November 1991. The respondent, K had been the weekly tenant of a house since 1967 owned by the appellant council, S. As is commonplace with council lettings there was no written tenancy agreement but both parties had assumed that S`s standard conditions of tenancy applied. Those conditions do not contain a repairing covenant by the tenant, they do covenant to provide access to the landlord for purposes of repair. The house has a path running across the rear, part of which belonged to the neighbour who had purchased their property. K claimed a right of way over the path which had fallen into a bad state of repair and which she had to use increasingly, being confined to a wheelchair. K claimed a mandatory injunction and damages for pain, suffering, inconvenience and distress. The judge found K did have a right of way based on Law of Property Act 1925 s62. Also there was an implied term that S should repair the path. S`s appeal that they were not responsible for repair of the path