Telecommunications Site near Totties Farm Hever Road Edenbridge Kent TN8 5DJ Claimant : Cornerstone Telecommunications (Operator) Infrastructure Limited LC–2023–000521
[2]Subject property : Telecommunications Site near Totties Farm Hever Road Edenbridge Kent TN8 5DJ[3]Claimant : Cornerstone Telecommunications (Operator) Infrastructure Limited[5]Respondents : Christopher George Manwaring (Site Provider) Alan Richard Gould Alexander Charles George Denniss Calcutt Jeremy Simon Kenneth Calcutt[7]Application : Electronic Communications Code[11]DECISION AND ORDER ON COSTS ____________________________________[12]© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 Introduction 1 Following a reference to the Upper Tribunal (subsequently transferred to the First-tier Tribunal), by Decision and Order dated 16 May 2025, pursuant to paragraphs 34(6) and 35(2A)(a) of the Electronic Communications Code (Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003), the First-tier Tribunal(i) ordered the termination of the existing agreement between the parties and the imposition of a new agreement and(ii) determined the interim site payment payable by the Claimant to the Respondents. 2 The parties were invited to make representations on the issue of costs and this is the Decision of the Tribunal on that issue. 3 The Claimant seeks an order that the Respondents pay the Claimant’s costs of the reference, summarily assessed on the indemnity basis in the sum of £69,207.50. The Respondents seek to refute the factual basis of the arguments made in support of the Claimant’s claim; and they claim their own costs in the sum of £17,933.00. Representations of the parties Representations of the Claimant 4 The Claimant seeks an order that the Respondents pay the Claimant’s costs of the reference, summarily assessed on the indemnity basis in the sum of £69,207.50. 5 Mr Tipler, on behalf of the Claimant, argues - (i) that the Claimant has been resoundingly the successful party on the issues in the claim; (ii) that the Respondents have not conducted the claim in a manner consistent with their duty to help the Tribunal to deal with the case fairly and justly; and(iii) that at trial the Claimant has beaten a settlement offer made to the Respondents before the proceedings were commenced. Success 6 Mr Tipler argues that the Claimant obtained an order for renewal on the terms proposed by the Claimant, subject to concessions made in an attempt to resolve the matter outside the Tribunal. He notes that the Tribunal (i) rejected the Respondents’ strike-out application, (ii) rejected three preliminary issues raised by the Respondents and (iii) accepted the Claimant’s arguments (and rejected the Respondents’ arguments) on the four particular issues identified in the Tribunal’s Directions dated 26 September 2024 which remained live at the hearing. Conduct 7 Mr Tipler argues that the conduct of Mr Gould, who largely represented the Respondents, had been ‘regrettable’. Following the expiry of the existing agreement between the parties, Mr Gould had taken several steps which the Tribunal described as ‘negative’. Mr Tipler argues that Mr Gould (i) had delayed, (ii) had taken hostile steps to restrict access to the telecommunications site, (iii) had repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations that the telecommunications apparatus was installed in the wrong location,(iv) had made a reference to an arbitrator, who commented that Mr Gould’s arguments ‘contained little merit’,(v) had apparently continued to dictate the Respondents’ approach to negotiations even during a brief period when solicitors and surveys were appointed,(vi) had fail[13]29 The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.[14]7 October 2025 Professor Nigel P Gravells Deputy Regional Judge