Khalid Qayyum Rana & Anor v Maitland Court Limited
[2024] UKUT 122 (LC)
Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Gateway Properties Ltd & Anor
1 August 2023
[2023] UKUT 188 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Two companies fought over rooftop telecom rights. They settled, but one (CTIL) had to pay the other's (APW) legal fees because they made a lot of unnecessary legal trouble for themselves and didn't achieve most of their goals.
Key Facts
- •Two references under the Electronic Communications Code were brought before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
- •The references concerned costs, excluding those related to a preliminary issue decided by the Supreme Court.
- •The case involved Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd (CTIL) and AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd (APW), with Gateway Properties Ltd also involved.
- •The dispute originated from a 2002 agreement granting rights over a building's roof, later interpreted as a tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
- •CTIL initially sought a new Code agreement but later amended its claim after a Supreme Court ruling.
- •The parties eventually settled their dispute via a Deed of Variation of the 1954 Act tenancy.
- •The Tribunal addressed the remaining costs and the dismissal of the references.
Legal Principles
The general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party, but the Tribunal may make a different order.
Tribunal's practice directions, mirroring High Court practice
When parties settle a dispute but disagree on costs, the Tribunal considers whether a costs order is fair and sensible without disproportionate time expenditure. Relevant factors include the settlement result, party conduct, and settlement offers.
Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities summarized by Mr. McGhee KC
The Tribunal considers which party would have succeeded at trial only if tolerably clear or obvious, avoiding fully reasoned judgments on non-existent issues.
Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities summarized by Mr. McGhee KC
Under the Electronic Communications Code, the operator proposes, the site provider agrees, and a reference resolves disagreements.
Electronic Communications Code
Outcomes
Both references were dismissed.
The final hearing revealed no basis for CTIL's relief; leaving the references open was unsatisfactory; dismissal appropriately addressed previous cost orders.
CTIL must pay APW's costs.
APW was deemed the successful party overall, having largely retained its rights under the existing agreement. CTIL's pursuit of unattainable relief and the late amendment of its case contributed to unnecessary costs.