Andrew Bruce considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in Clarence House & the future of virtual assignments
The Supreme Court has now refused permission to appeal in the case of Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [2009] EWCA Civ 1311, [2009] All ER (D) 70 (Dec) and so it is perhaps an opportune moment to consider whether, in the light of the Court of Appeal’s decision, virtual assignments will (or ought to) continue to be relevant to property practitioners.
For the uninitiated, a virtual assignment is a conveyancing device for leases under which “...all the economic benefits and burdens of the relevant lease (including any management responsibilities) are transferred [by the lessee] to a third party, but without any actual assignment of the leasehold interest or any change in the actual occupancy of the premises in question” [per HHJ Hodge QC at first instance in Clarence House]. It enables transactions involving large portfolios of leases to be dealt with swiftly and efficiently without the need for consents to assignments under each of the particular leases having to be
