The case of Covent Garden IP Limited v CTIL [2025] UKUT 136 (LC) confirms that site providers may be entitled to more than nominal consideration for MSVs, in addition to compensation.
Covent Garden IP Ltd (the site provider) purchased an office building known as Alder Castle in the City of London in 2019.
In 2021, Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited (the operator) identified the building as a possible replacement site for telecommunications apparatus which it had been required to remove from another building in the vicinity. The site provider was initially cooperative and permitted the operator to undertake a survey to assess the suitability of the building for a telecommunications installation, known as a multi-skilled visit ("MSV"); however, when the operator later requested access for further investigations, the site provider was busy with a costly and extensive refurbishment project for the building and less responsive.
In October 2023, the operator served a notice under paragraph 26 of the Electronic Communications Code, requesting an interim rights agreement to allow this further MSV. When the request was ignored, the operator later applied to the First Tier Tribunal ("FTT") to impose these interim rights. The FTT is statutorily bound to determine these applications within 6 months.
The MSV agreement was not opposed in principle by the site provider but the parties could not agree on certain terms, including the consideration payable under it, representing the market value of the site provider's agreement to confer: the site provider sought £2,000 but the operator offered only £1.
The FTT directions allowed either party the ability to apply for permission to rely on expert valuation evidence. The site provider made this application less than 4 weeks before the hearing. The FTT judge refused permission on the basis that, because this was an MSV case only and the Tribunal had consistently made only nominal orders for consideration, the application was "misconceived".
On 24 July 2024, the FTT imposed an agreement on the parties for the interim rights requested, with consideration payable of £1.
The site provider appealed. The Upper Tribunal ("UT") considered:
-
whether there is any principle that only nominal consideration should be payable for an agreement under paragraph 26 of the Code imposing interim rights to carry out an MSV; and
-
the proper practice where a site provider wishes to rely on expert evidence in support of more than nominal consideration.
The UT held that the fact that most parties may have agreed nominal consideration, that did not restrict a site provider from arguing for a greater sum, based on expert valuation evidence, in addition to its claim for compensation for any damage or inconvenience caused as a result of the MSV.
Despite this, the appeal was dismissed by the UT as, although the FTT's decision had been given for the wrong reasons, the decision would have been the same if the FTT had applied the correct reasoning on the facts of the case.
This case is the first to consider a dispute over the consideration payable for interim rights to conduct an MSV. While on the facts, the UT upheld the FTT's decision to award consideration of £1, it paves the way for site providers to adduce valuation evidence in support of a greater figure. However, operators are unlikely to accept consideration claims easily given the impact this will have on their operations. Where the costs of valuation evidence may outweigh the consideration claimed, the key issue for site providers remains proportionality and this will need to be borne in mind in negotiations for MSVs.
