Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hackney
Decision date: 5 August 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 210 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Cornerstone sought interim Electronic Communications Code rights to carry out a one-day non-intrusive multi-skilled visit and an asbestos survey on the roof of Tradescant House. The London Borough of Hackney did not oppose access in principle but disputed draft agreement terms, principally whether the landlord must approve Cornerstone’s risk assessment and method statement (RAMS). The Tribunal imposed a qualified approval condition allowing the landlord to refuse access until it has approved RAMS (approval not to be unreasonably withheld), and set specific terms on document provision, fees, costs and warranties as summarised in the notes.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where a proposed MSV involves premises that form part of a site-provider’s undertaking and the provider is better placed to know site-specific risks, the Tribunal may impose an approval condition requiring the site-provider’s approval of the operator’s RAMS, subject to the constraint that approval must not be unreasonably withheld; such terms are consistent with paragraph 23(5) of the Code in seeking to ensure the least possible loss and damage.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal noted that prior consensual agreements about approval requirements are not determinative when terms are disputed, and that while the risk of criminal liability to a site-provider from allowing contractors on-site without final RAMS approval is unlikely in itself, practical considerations justify an approval mechanism where the provider better knows site-specific risks.