EE Limited and Hutchinson 3G UK Limited v David Paul Stephenson & Anor

EE Limited and Hutchinson 3G UK Limited v David Paul Stephenson & Anor

An operator is not required to plead a site-specific justification for seeking termination of an expired subsisting agreement and the grant of a new Code-compliant agreement; the general business and technical needs and the benefits of the Code are sufficient. However, an applicant cannot seek alternative relief under para 34 unless a valid notice proposing such change has been served.

Parties
Claimant: EE Limited; Claimant: Hutchison 3G UK Limited; Respondent: David Paul Stephenson; Respondent: AP Wireless II (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Electronic Communications Code Application (preliminary Issues) / Ruling on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; application for new agreement not struck out; alternative relief claim struck out
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Termination and Modification of Code Agreements, Transitional Provisions, Statutory Interpretation
Land Law Telecommunications Law Electronic Communications Code Termination and Modification of Code Agreements Transitional Provisions Statutory Interpretation

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EE Limited

Claimant

Hutchison 3G UK Limited

Claimant

David Paul Stephenson

Respondent

AP Wireless II (UK) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Electronic Communications Code Application (preliminary Issues) / Ruling on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an operator must plead a site-specific reason for a new agreement under the Electronic Communications Code
  2. 2 Whether an applicant can claim alternative relief not preceded by notice proposing change

Ratio Decidendi

An operator is not required to plead a site-specific justification for seeking termination of an expired subsisting agreement and the grant of a new Code-compliant agreement; the general business and technical needs and the benefits of the Code are sufficient. However, an applicant cannot seek alternative relief under para 34 unless a valid notice proposing such change has been served.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; application for new agreement not struck out; alternative relief claim struck out

Orders

  • The application for termination of the existing agreement and the grant of a new agreement is not struck out for lack of site-specific justification.
  • The claim for alternative relief not preceded by notice is struck out.