Kingston House North, Princes Gate, London SW7 1LN Claimant : Cornerstone Telecommunications (Operator) Infrastructure Limited BIR/00CN/EIA/2026/0047

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No BIR/00CN/EIA/2026/0047

Between

Kingston House Property Management Ltd (Site Provider)Respondent

Osborne Clarke LLP for the Applicant

Freeths LLP for the Respondent

Date 3 August 2026

Property: Kingston House North, Princes Gate, London SW7 1LN

REASONS

[1]Judge Jackson awarded costs in favour of the Respondent with reference to both Paragraph 84(2) of the Code and Paragraph 96(1) of the Code. The Respondent submits for the following:(i) The issues in dispute regarding this MSV agreement were (a) entitlement to an escort when visual surveys were carried out; (b) the carrying out of the escort role by Hub Telecoms (“Hub”) or (c) others; and, (d) the costs thereof. This was in the context of a “high-end residential apartment building … occupied by a number of very senior MOD personnel … overlook[ing] a number of foreign embassies.” The escort costs issues were settled through the offer by the Claimant and acceptance by the Respondent of £150 plus VAT.

(ii) The Respondent’s schedule of costs is in the sum of £15,790, to which VAT is sought (belatedly) to be added and providing a total of £18,948. The Respondent has volunteered to limit its costs to £11,000 plus VAT.

[2]The Tribunal notes that Transactional costs are awarded under Paragraph 84(2)(a) of the Code (more properly “expenses including reasonable legal and valuation expenses”) and Litigation “costs” are sought pursuant to Paragraph 96(1) of the Code. There are two awards and there should be separately identifiable sums, but the Respondent has conflated them as the matter has been handled by property litigators. VAT ought to have been claimed from the outset, but the Tribunal will entertain its inclusion, since omission was an oversight and would represent a pure windfall for the paying Claimant.

[3]The Claimant has made lengthy submissions on costs. In summary, it is submitted that for a “wholly routine non-intrusive MSV matter”, settled before trial with an adapted template agreement, the sum claimed is disproportionate (the Claimant uses somewhat more florid language). This sum total includes(i) duplication of agent’s fees with those of specialist telecoms solicitors (from September 2025);

(ii) lack of cooperation in circumstances where the eventual agreement was not much modified from draft and escort fees were compromised for a modest sum; and,

(iii) the Claimant has now spent £900 plus VAT in addressing costs.

[4]The law is familiar and I acknowledge the cases referred to in the submissions made by the Claimant. Recitation is unnecessary here, but I note from Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v St Martins Property Investments Limited and another

[2021] UKUT 262 (LC)

two points: firstly, at [44] the observation that “each case will involve a particular building and particular issues”, which means that examples of other decisions are of limited value; and, secondly, at [46] the significance of proportionality in respect of litigation costs, but surely also encompassed in the “reasonable legal and valuation expenses” incurred in the transaction (my emphasis).

[5]It is unnecessary to set out the history of the proceedings. I do note, however, the substantial extent of the Respondent’s compromise of escort costs (initially sought at £675 plus VAT for a half day or £950 plus VAT for a full day, settled at £150 plus VAT). This was the only significant dispute between the parties.

[6]Plainly, not only is the full sum claimed by the Respondent disproportionate to a dispute of this nature, but so is the lower sum of £11,000 plus VAT.

[7]In respect of transactional costs, the Respondent has identified “Work done on MSV agreement and negotiations relating to the MSV” in its schedule, in the sum of £2,924 (plus VAT). Other descriptors appear to relate to litigation costs, but presumably included some element of exchanges relating to the outcome of the consideration of these documents. If there were other sums in the schedule relating to transactional costs, it was for the Respondent to identify them. In any event, the correspondence suggests that only 3 minor points were required to be modified. They did not require 6.4 hours of Grade A time, plus 0.9 of Grade C, even allowing for escort costs to be negotiated. Indeed, it is hard to see that all these points warranted any more than limited Grade A supervision.

[8]In context, and allowing for the security issues in respect of a prestige building, I consider that the reasonable prospective costs undertaking, sought by Hub on 2nd April 2025, in the sum of £2,000 (plus VAT) would have been a reasonable outturn.

[9]In respect of litigation costs, these should also have been modest indeed. The Respondent had minor successes in amendments and a sum for escort costs, but nothing warranting the balance of this claim or £9,000 (plus VAT) additional to the reasonable transactional costs. I take account of the eventual, but modest, recovery of escort costs. I also take account of the sensitivities of this building leading to greater internal communication with clients, but the extensive use of a Grade A solicitor (the work entailed should have been largely dedicated to junior staff), the total hours spent (unreasonable in aggregate) and the apparent duplication with Hub were each unreasonable. I would allow a further £2,000 (plus VAT) for litigation costs (taking account of the following paragraph).

[10]Given the scale of the deduction, I will leave the costs of preparing for summary assessment to lie where they fall, disallowing 3 hours sought by the Respondent for the schedule and the correspondence, but taking no account of the Claimant’s £900 plus costs claim.

[11]It follows that the award is £4,800, inclusive of VAT. Judge Anthony Verduyn