EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v 100 Nox S.A.R.L
Decision date: 13 May 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 130 (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
Claimants EE and Hutchison sought interim rights under paragraph 26 of the Electronic Communications Code to carry out an intrusive rooftop survey at 100 New Oxford Street. The Tribunal refused the interim application because there was no evidence the respondent had received notice, the paragraph 26 notice was mis‑addressed, the claimants had not established who occupied or controlled the roof, and there was no clear specification of the intrusive works proposed. An adjournment to remedy defects was refused and the parties were informed of appeal rights.
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 treated as a prerequisite to granting interim intrusive access under paragraph 26 that the respondent has been put on notice and that the applicant has made real efforts to contact the respondent; further, the Tribunal will not undertake the paragraph 21 public‑benefit/prejudice balancing on a merely “good arguable case” basis absent reasonably precise information about the proposed intrusive works and about potential prejudice to the respondent.
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 observed that a mis‑addressed paragraph 26 notice can mislead an overseas respondent and undermine effective service even if annexes name the correct party, and noted it is unusual to order intrusive surveys over the objection or in the absence of awareness of the building owner.
Warning
Chunk contains repeated passages and minor typographical errors; care taken to avoid double‑counting duplicated text. Notes contain repeated passages and minor typographical errors; they may not capture every detail of the full judgment.