000			01688cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS68746
008			050228n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128901
041			_aeng
245			_aHarbour Estates Ltd v HSBC Bank plc
260			_c2005
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[2005] 2 WLR 67-86(19)
520			_a[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.
590			_aABS
650			_aHARBOUR ESTATES LTD V HSBC BANK PLC
650			_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S63(1)
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-COMMERCIAL LEASES-ASSIGNMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASES
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1714.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c74851 _d74851