QB-2022-001364 - [2025] EWHC 2758 (KB)
Fecha: 30-Oct-2025
Discussion and conclusion
Discussion and conclusion
I agree with Mr Strickland that in this context “make” means “bring into effect”. The case against Ofcom is that section 8(4) required Ofcom, through the exercise of its power to make regulations, to ensure that Edge was exempt from the requirement to obtain a licence for the relevant purposes. That state of affairs could only be brought about by regulations being brought into effect, and it would only be at that point that the breach of duty came to an end. The word “make” in section 8(4) appears as part of the phrase “they must make regulations under subsection (3) exempting the establishment, installation and use of a station or apparatus of that description from subsection (1)” and I agree with Mr Strickland that, for the purposes of section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, this duty was not discharged until any regulations which were made actually did exempt the relevant apparatus etc. I do not accept that Parliament can have intended that Ofcom could discharge its duty by making regulations under section 8(4) but not bringing them into effect.
On this basis, both claims are in my view in time.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The factual and legal context for the claims
- Edge’s pleaded claim in these proceedings
- As a matter of law does Edge have an actionable claim in damages in relation to the breaches of statutory duty which it alleges?
- The broad issues under this heading
- Mr Strickland’s first submission in greater detail
- Discussion and conclusion on Mr Strickland’s first argument
- The principles applicable to determining whether there is a right to claim damages for breach of section 8(4) of the WTA 2006
- Edge’s argument
- Discussion
- Are the claims or either of them time-barred?
- Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980
- When were the claims “brought”?
- Edge’s case on limitation
- Ofcom’s case on limitation
- Discussion and conclusion
- Conclusions