CORNERSTONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
Decision date: 30 October 2018
Neutral citation: [2018] UKUT 356 (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 access the roof of Lillian Penson Hall for a small number of short, non‑intrusive survey visits after losing a nearby site; the University of London refused. The Upper Tribunal held that such preliminary surveys fall within Code rights (as part of "install" or "works in connection with installation"), that an operator may seek standalone interim rights under para 26 without concurrently pursuing permanent rights under para 20, and that Cornerstone had a "good arguable case" under para 21 so that interim access should be imposed, leaving detailed terms and compensation to be agreed or determined later.
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’s ratio is that the Code’s concept of "install" (para 3(a)) encompasses necessary preparatory steps such as preliminary surveys, so access for such surveys can be a Code right; and that para 26 permits an operator to seek interim Code rights on a standalone basis where it can show a "good arguable case" that the para 21 conditions for imposition of rights are met.
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 commented obiter that explanatory materials (Law Commission and Explanatory Notes) may assist construction but cannot override clear statutory language, that the lower "good arguable case" threshold for interim relief reflects policy favouring communications infrastructure, and that poor procedural conduct by a landowner (tone, limited disclosure, Protocol non‑compliance) is relevant but will not normally defeat interim relief where the statutory test is satisfied.