[2004] 2 EWHC 1714 (Ch), 15 July 2004. Considers if an assignee of underleases can benefit from break clauses. HE contended that there had been no automatic, express or implied transfer of the benefit of the break clause when the underleases were assigned to HSBC. HS counterclaimed that the benefit fell within the ordinary meaning of the Law of Property Act 1925 s63(1) as a right in the property conveyed, which the assignor had the power to convey and that the benefit passed with the term on assignment. "Held": it could not be concluded that the benefit had passed to HSBC by virtue of s63 as the assignment made no express mention of such benefit, or under s62 because it was not a right that touched or concerned the land. However under a limited interpretation of s63 the benefit of the break clause passed with the term on assignment as it touched and concerned the right. HSBC had been entitled to exercise it. Claim dismissed.