Ruling Maintains £1 Prize for Telecoms Research Study
Published on May 1, 2025
Court Chastises Property Owner for Being "Way Off the Mark" with Valuation Demand.
In a ruling issued on April 30, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) flatly rejected an appeal from Covent Garden IP, taking issue with the owner's hefty demand for valuation of their property, Alder Castle. The dispute revolved around telecommunications apparatus and a disagreement between the property owner and Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure (CTIL) concerning the nominal consideration for interim rights to conduct a survey under the Electronic Communications Code.
The Nitty-Gritty
The heart of the matter revolved around an office building in the City of London, whiskered Alder Castle, owned by Covent Garden IP, which CTIL identified as a potential site for telecommunications infrastructure. Following an initial inspection in November 2021, CTIL requested further access under paragraph 26 of the Electronic Communications Code in October 2023. Despite igniting the process, the property owner began to shy away, with their own refurbishment plans looming on the horizon.
First-Tier Tribunal
The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) directed the parties to exchange drafts of an interim rights agreement and set a hearing. While both parties agreed on the principle of granting interim rights, they clashed on the payment. Covent Garden IP proposed a staggering £2,000, while CTIL sought a mere £1. In a curious twist, Covent Garden IP sought permission to rely on expert valuation evidence, but their application arrived less than four weeks before the hearing, leaving the FTT no choice but to deny the request. Subsequently, the FTT determined the reference without expert evidence, establishing an agreement for interim rights with nominal consideration of £1.
Upper Tribunal
Unsatisfied with the FTT's decision, Covent Garden IP appealed, protesting the refusal to consider expert evidence and the imposition of nominal consideration. However, Martin Rodger KC, presiding, CAUTIONED that the FTT's refusal to permit expert evidence was warranted due to the tardiness of the application and the absence of a draft report or proposed timetable. The tribunal clarified that the FTT's standard directions in interim rights cases allow for expert evidence but mandate timely applications and practical timetabling, neither of which was met in this case.
The Upper Tribunal also addressed the substantive decision, stating that the FTT was within its rights to grant nominal consideration based on the material before it and the precedents set by previous agreements.
Nominal Consideration
The tribunal acknowledged that the FTT's decision to award nominal consideration was unscathed by the refusal to permit expert evidence. It underscored that the Electronic Communications Code is designed to facilitate the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure, striking a balance between property owners' and operators' interests. By not burdening operators with prohibitive costs, necessary surveys and works could proceed smoothly.
Moreover, the application for expert evidence was deemed tardy and impractical, and the FTT's determination of the terms of the interim rights agreement without expert evidence was considered justifiable. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the FTT's order for Covent Garden IP to contribute to CTIL's costs was upheld.
The Verdict
In Covent Garden IP (applicant) v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure (respondent), the applicant was represented by David Holland KC of Landmark Chambers, instructed by Concorde Solicitors. The respondent was represented by Oliver Radley-Gardner KC and James Tipler of Falcon Chambers, instructed by Osborne Clarke.
Insights
- Expert evidence should be sought promptly to avoid complications in cases related to the Electronic Communications Code.
- Courts expect cooperative expert engagement; any delays or tactical maneuvering may hinder a party's case.
- Courts prioritize efficiency in interim proceedings, making late applications for complex valuation evidence particularly risky unless warranted by urgency or necessity.
- In the Covent Garden IP case, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) reprimanded the property owner for unsupported demands in a property valuation, citing its decision on Alder Castle.
- During the Upper Tribunal proceedings, it was made clear that expert valuation evidence applications need to be timely and accompanied by a proposed timetable, or they may be deemed impractical and refused.
- The tribunal also highlighted the financial industry's expectation of nominal considerations when granting interim rights for telecommunications infrastructure, likening it to the industry's standard practices.
