EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v 100 Nox S.A.R.L

EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v 100 Nox S.A.R.L

The application was refused because the respondent was not shown to be aware of the proceedings, the paragraph 26 notice was mis-addressed, it was unclear whether the correct respondent was identified, and there was insufficient evidence as to what the claimant intended to do or the potential prejudice to the respondent. The Tribunal could not perform the required balancing exercise or find a good arguable case.

Parties
Claimant: EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited; Respondent: 100 NOX S. A. R. L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Reference Under Schedule 3 a to the Communications Act 2003 (electronic Communications Code) / Interim Application for Code Rights
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Interim Code Rights, Service of Notice, Procedural Fairness
Telecommunications Law Property Law Electronic Communications Code Interim Code Rights Service of Notice Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited

Claimant

100 NOX S. A. R. L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference Under Schedule 3 a to the Communications Act 2003 (electronic Communications Code) / Interim Application for Code Rights

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to interim Code rights under paragraph 26 of the Electronic Communications Code
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was properly served and aware of the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the correct respondent was identified

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the respondent was not shown to be aware of the proceedings, the paragraph 26 notice was mis-addressed, it was unclear whether the correct respondent was identified, and there was insufficient evidence as to what the claimant intended to do or the potential prejudice to the respondent. The Tribunal could not perform the required balancing exercise or find a good arguable case.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The claimant's application for interim rights is refused.