The recent English Upper Tribunal decision in Covent Garden IP Limited v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited (“Cornerstone”) [2025] UKUT 136 (LC) offers a timely and important reminder for landowners navigating the complexities of the Electronic Communications Code. Our Land & Rural Business and Dispute Resolution teams specialise in telecoms and act exclusively for landowners negotiating with telecoms operators (such as EE, Hutcheson 3G, O2, Vodafone, and Cornerstone), and we want to highlight what this case means for site providers/landowners and why it is essential to be proactive when faced with access requests from telecoms operators.
At the heart of the case was a dispute over whether a landowner - Covent Garden IP Ltd - could rely on expert valuation evidence to argue for more than nominal consideration (£1) when granting interim rights to Cornerstone for a non-intrusive survey (known as an MSV – Multi Skilled Visit). The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to award only nominal consideration and refusing permission to admit expert evidence due to procedural missteps.
But the case is far from a simple loss for landowners. In fact, it clarifies several key points that site providers should be aware of:
1. There is no legal rule mandating only nominal consideration
The Tribunal confirmed that there is no legal principle requiring only nominal consideration for interim rights under the Code. While nominal sums are often agreed in practice (typically £1) this is not a binding rule. Landowners are entitled to argue for more, especially where the rights sought are more than trivial or where the operator’s access may disrupt ongoing operations or redevelopment plans.
2. Expert evidence is permissible if timely and properly managed
The Tribunal was clear: expert valuation evidence can be admitted in support of a claim for meaningful consideration. However, the application must be timely, well-prepared, and accompanied by a realistic timetable. In this case, the landowner’s late and poorly structured application undermined its own position. The lesson? If you intend to challenge nominal consideration, engage your legal and valuation team early.
3. Procedural Missteps Can Undermine Substantive Rights
Although the Tribunal acknowledged that the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to admit expert evidence was flawed, it found that the outcome would likely have been the same. This underscores the importance of procedural discipline: missed deadlines and vague submissions can cost you the chance to make your case.
4. Costs Can Be Significant
The landowner was ordered to contribute £8,400 towards Cornerstone’s legal costs. This, combined with its own legal expenses (reportedly over £50,000), highlights the financial
risks of litigation. A strategic, well-advised approach from the outset can help avoid unnecessary costs.
Need advice? We are here to help
If you are a landowner or site provider facing access requests under the Electronic Communications Code, do not go it alone. Whether it is negotiating terms, assessing compensation, or managing tribunal proceedings, we can help you protect your property interests and navigate the legal landscape with confidence.
