Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Gateway Properties Ltd & Anor

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Gateway Properties Ltd & Anor

APW is the successful party in the references as a whole, having maintained the benefit of the 1954 Act tenancy and defeated CTIL's principal claims. CTIL is liable for APW's costs of the references, except for the preliminary issue costs (to be determined by the Supreme Court). The references are dismissed as there is no relief to be granted following the parties' agreement.

Parties
Applicant: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd; First Respondent: Gateway Properties Ltd; Second Respondent: AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Reference Under Electronic Communications Code (costs) / Costs Determination After Settlement and Supreme Court Remission
Outcome
References dismissed. Costs awarded to APW against CTIL.
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Costs of Proceedings, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Jurisdiction, Settlement of Disputes
Land Law Telecommunications Law Civil Procedure Electronic Communications Code Costs of Proceedings Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Jurisdiction Settlement of Disputes

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd

Applicant

Gateway Properties Ltd

First Respondent

AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference Under Electronic Communications Code (costs) / Costs Determination After Settlement and Supreme Court Remission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purposes of costs?
  2. 2 Should the references be dismissed or left unresolved?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate order for costs in light of the parties' settlement and procedural history?

Ratio Decidendi

APW is the successful party in the references as a whole, having maintained the benefit of the 1954 Act tenancy and defeated CTIL's principal claims. CTIL is liable for APW's costs of the references, except for the preliminary issue costs (to be determined by the Supreme Court). The references are dismissed as there is no relief to be granted following the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

References dismissed. Costs awarded to APW against CTIL.

Orders

  • Both references are dismissed.
  • CTIL to pay APW's costs of the references, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.