It is generally accepted in the telecoms market that activity has been “paused” until operators and site providers had some idea of how would the Electronic Communications Code would be applied. The “first case” has been eagerly awaited.
That first case is now here; it gives useful indications but has not been as definitive as we had hoped (or feared). The site in question was a rooftop site, which make up a small proportion of the telecom sites in the UK. Given the restrictions on alternative use, restricted access and development opportunities the sums to be awarded were always likely to be modest.
The Tribunal fully understood the state of the market place, even making an assumption that the outline agreement, where a consideration of £21,000 a year had been agreed in principal, was not completed because the valuation provisions of the Code were thought to be more favourable to the Claimants.
This case is unlikely to be definitive in terms of creating a precedent, especially as the Respondents made the cardinal error of refusing the Tribunal’s direction in commenting on a draft agreement prepared by the Claimants. This failure was seen as deliberate by the Tribunal and was a source of annoyance to them. It resulted in the Tribunal setting the terms of the agreement as proposed by the Claimants, with no reply.
The interesting points considered by the Tribunal which will be relevant to upcoming cases included:
-The Tribunal rejected a suggestion that leases could not be created by the Court under the Code.
-The “no scheme” rule was analysed, and it was confirmed that any value attributable solely to use for telecoms purposes is to be left out of account. This rule has been re-named as the “no-network” assumption. The presence in the market of operators who might want to use the site to provide a network must be ignored and the price which such operators would offer for the site must also not be taken into account. Rental values achieved for other uses could be taken into account, however.
-Otherwise the valuation criteria is that of market value, which is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for an agreement, on the terms to be imposed by the Court, and an arms-length transaction where both parties act prudently and with full knowledge.
-The fact that no-one is actually willing to rent the site does not mean that rental will be nominal. The value of the land to the willing buyer will depend in every case what its characteristics and potential uses, and not on the number of potential bidders.
-Any reliance on transactions under the old code is likely to be rejected.
-Any risks and obligations which the relationship creates for the Site Provider (the expenses of running the building, service charge etc) must be taken into account. The Tribunal felt that this should be reflected in consideration rather than compensation.
The Tribunal considered that an appropriate market value consideration would be £1,000 per annum, but fixed compensation at £2,551.77 per annum, which the Claimants had offered in their pleadings and were willing to stick to.
When it came to compensation, the Tribunal rejected a suggestion that Claimants can only apply for compensation at the time it made the rights order. The Tribunal also rejected a suggestion that the power to grant compensation was wholly discretionary, and followed three general conditions from the law of compulsory purchase, namely that there must be a causal connection between the acquisition and the loss, the loss must not be too remote and those who claim compensation must sustain only a reasonable loss.
Several heads of loss were rejected as too speculative or too early. It is clear that applications for compensation can be made by site providers as the need arises.
We do not have the first complete indication of exactly how a Tribunal is going to deal with consideration or compensation claims, but we do have some early indicators as to how they will approach certain questions. Most importantly, the relatively low amount of rent applied as consideration in this case does not mean that similar amounts will be applied to other sites. Accordingly, the wait for complete insight into how Tribunals will fix consideration continues.
Liam Entwistle is a Partner at Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP. This article appeared in the Spring edition of FutureScot Magazine in The Times Scotland: Download the PDF.
Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP is a full-service, independent Scottish law firm, with a history stretching back 165 years, operating from offices in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness, Dunblane and Dunfermline. Further information on WJM can be found at wjm.co.uk
Related posts
Interviews
Comment
Why innovation and marketing are the perfect partners to make changes that matter
With the rapid evolution of traditional marketing and the appearance of digital marketing, technology and innovation has become part of any marketer’s life without the need of working for a…
Transitioning to a four-day week – CEO’s vow to strike a healthier balance in the workplace
I came to Scotland nearly 20 years ago from Ireland, with no contacts but a lot of determination. While Ireland will always be my home, Scotland has given me amazing…
Women Lead: The female-led company championing intuitive working
Over the last two years, the pandemic forced a shift to more remote and flexible working practices. Whilst we might be seeing a “return to normal”, some companies are choosing…
Women Lead: My passion for young people to consider a career in digital
Twenty years ago, I stumbled across my career in digital marketing almost by accident. It was during my honours degree in marketing at Glasgow Caledonian University. I was on work…
Women Lead: Inclusive Silicon Valley cohort gives hope to entrepreneurs from diverse backgrounds
Things are happening on the Scottish tech scene. Big and small initiatives are creating a fantastic ripple effect on the sector, bottom up and top down, thanks to the recommendations…
Women Lead: The story of an entrepreneurial scientist
I first arrived in Scotland over 20 years ago. I had £75 in my wallet and a scholarship offer to do a PhD at the University of Edinburgh. Sometimes I…
Please mind the gap… or healthcare may fall
Imagine sharing a lengthy train journey with others. From beginning to end, imagine how often you might hear ‘mind the gap’ messages about embarking and disembarking safely. Picture how navigating…
Women Lead: My journey from Dragons’ Den to Silicon Valley
Following her appearance on Dragons’ Den, Sheila Hogan, serial entrepreneur, founder and chief executive of digital legacy vault, Biscuit Tin, shares her experience of her time in the Den and…