Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v St Martins Property Investments Limited & Anor

Decision date: 8 October 2021

Neutral citation: [2021] UKUT 262 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

This was a paragraph 26 interim Code reference by Cornerstone seeking rights to carry out multi-operator site visits (MSVs) and intrusive "investigative works" at 1 London Bridge. The Tribunal dismissed the freeholder from the claim as unnecessary, permitted non-intrusive MSVs on limited terms (six months with a two-month active access window) but refused intrusive or destructive investigative works at this stage, and made costs orders against the claimant.

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

The Tribunal held that interim Code rights granted under paragraph 26 are statutory and bind site providers without requiring the freeholder to be a party where the freeholder’s involvement is unnecessary; it will exercise restraint in granting intrusive or structural investigative rights at the interim MSV stage, especially for prominent or sensitive buildings, leaving such intrusive rights to a further application with fuller justification. Costs awarded should be proportionate, and reasonable transactional legal and valuation expenses may be recoverable by site providers.

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 suggested that elaborate one-size contractual compensation schemes for MSVs can be unnecessary and counter-productive and that parties may rely on statutory compensation procedures if they cannot agree. It also indicated that operators should not ordinarily be required to pay for professional technical supervision of their contractors, and warned against disproportionate litigation spending in access/MSV disputes.

Warning

quality:contains_crown_copyright

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML