Harbour Estates Ltd. v HSBC Bank Plc [2004] EWHC 1714 (Ch) (15 July 2004)

Harbour Estates Ltd. v HSBC Bank Plc [2004] EWHC 1714 (Ch) (15 July 2004)

The benefit of the break clause, though unusually framed and partly personal, was sufficiently connected to the lease to 'touch and concern' the land or at least to be a right 'in, to or on' the property conveyed. There was no contrary intention expressed in the assignment. Therefore, the benefit of the break clause passed to HSBC on assignment under Section 63 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and HSBC validly exercised the break clause to terminate the lease.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1714 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant (in HC04 C00823), Defendant (in HC04 C00929): Harbour Estates Limited; Defendant (in HC04 C00823), Claimant (in HC04 C00929): HSBC Bank PLC; Original Lessee (not a Party to Current Proceedings): Stafford Properties Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed; declaration granted; no order for rectification.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Lease, Break Clause, Touch and Concern the Land, Section 63 Law of Property Act 1925, Rectification
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Assignment of Lease Break Clause Touch and Concern the Land Section 63 Law of Property Act 1925 Rectification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harbour Estates Limited

Claimant (in HC04 C00823), Defendant (in HC04 C00929)

HSBC Bank PLC

Defendant (in HC04 C00823), Claimant (in HC04 C00929)

Stafford Properties Ltd

Original Lessee (not a Party to Current Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the benefit of a break clause in a lease passed to the assignee (HSBC) without express mention in the assignment instrument
  2. 2 Whether the break clause 'touched and concerned' the land or was merely personal
  3. 3 Whether Section 63 of the Law of Property Act 1925 operated to pass the benefit of the break clause

Ratio Decidendi

The benefit of the break clause, though unusually framed and partly personal, was sufficiently connected to the lease to 'touch and concern' the land or at least to be a right 'in, to or on' the property conveyed. There was no contrary intention expressed in the assignment. Therefore, the benefit of the break clause passed to HSBC on assignment under Section 63 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and HSBC validly exercised the break clause to terminate the lease.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed; declaration granted; no order for rectification.

Orders

  • Claimant's claim dismissed
  • Declaration granted that HSBC validly exercised the break clause and terminated the lease as of 23 June 2004