PETITION BY MARKS AND SPENCER PLC AGAINST CORNERSTONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD [2023] ScotCS CSIH_24 (13 June 2023)

PETITION BY MARKS AND SPENCER PLC AGAINST CORNERSTONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD [2023] ScotCS CSIH_24 (13 June 2023)

The Tribunal did not err in law by refusing to consider the appellant's late submission regarding staff access to the PEZ, as this issue was not previously raised despite ample opportunity, and all ICNIRP matters put in issue had already been determined. Procedural fairness did not require reopening the matter, and the Tribunal was entitled to proceed on the basis that the appellant's staff were OEWs.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSIH_24
Parties
Appellant: Marks and Spencer PLC; Respondent: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Lands Tribunal for Scotland
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Compulsory Rights of Access, Public and Occupational Health and Safety, Procedural Fairness, ICNIRP Guidelines
Property Law Telecommunications Law Administrative Law Electronic Communications Code Compulsory Rights of Access Public and Occupational Health and Safety Procedural Fairness ICNIRP Guidelines

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marks and Spencer PLC

Appellant

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Lands Tribunal for Scotland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lands Tribunal erred in refusing to consider a late submission regarding staff access to the Public Exclusion Zone (PEZ) under ICNIRP guidelines
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal had already determined all relevant ICNIRP issues in its earlier decision
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness required the Tribunal to consider the new issue raised by the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law by refusing to consider the appellant's late submission regarding staff access to the PEZ, as this issue was not previously raised despite ample opportunity, and all ICNIRP matters put in issue had already been determined. Procedural fairness did not require reopening the matter, and the Tribunal was entitled to proceed on the basis that the appellant's staff were OEWs.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal is refused.