Covent Garden IP Limited v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited
Decision date: 30 April 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 136 (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
The Upper Tribunal dismissed Covent Garden IP Ltd's appeal against FTT decisions that imposed interim Code rights for a further multi-skilled visit at Alder Castle with nominal consideration of £1 and refused late permission to rely on expert valuation evidence. The UT held there is no legal bar to adducing expert valuation evidence for disputed interim consideration under paragraph 26(6)(b), but the Building Owner's application to admit such evidence was hopelessly late and would have been refused for case‑management reasons even though the procedural judge had misdirected on the law. The FTT's award of nominal consideration was upheld for lack of persuasive evidence to the contrary, and the appeal against the costs order was refused.
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
Paragraph 26(6)(b) leaves consideration for interim Code rights discretionary and does not preclude expert valuation evidence; tribunals may admit such evidence where appropriate. However, where an application to rely on expert evidence is materially late, lacks substance and no workable timetable can be proposed, a tribunal properly exercising case‑management discretion may refuse it—even if an earlier procedural ruling misdirected on the law—so long as the appellant cannot show real prejudice from that error. In the absence of persuasive valuation evidence, nominal consideration for a short, non‑destructive MSV can be awarded.
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 judgment noted that nominal consideration is routinely agreed for MSVs for practical reasons (limited, short-term, non-destructive access and the no-network assumption) and that standard directions on expert evidence (including requiring an expert synopsis and proposed timetable) help control late, disproportionate valuation material. These observations were expressed as practical guidance rather than binding legal propositions.