![[2025] UKUT 136 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
The appeal
The appeal
Permission to appeal was granted by this Tribunal. The grounds of appeal ran to 29 pages but, stated succinctly, the material points for which permission was given were:
Whether the decision was wrong in law because the FTT refused to consider evidence of the market value of the rights conferred over the Building.
Whether the decision to award consideration of £1 was based on a finding of fact for which there was no supporting evidence.
Whether a procedural irregularity or obvious unfairness in the proceedings caused the decision to be unjust.
The Building Owner also took issue with the description in CTIL’s standard form of MSV agreement of the area over which interim rights could be exercised, but as the rights have long since been exercised without the difficulties which the original grounds of appeal anticipated, this complaint was not argued at the hearing and I need say no more about it.
When I gave permission to appeal I suggested that the two questions of importance raised by the appeal were, first, whether there is any principle that only nominal consideration should be payable for an agreement under paragraph 26 of the Code imposing interim rights to carry out an MSV; and, secondly, the proper practice where a site provider wishes to rely on expert evidence in support of more than nominal consideration.
The Building Owner also sought permission to appeal the FTT’s order that it pay part of CTIL’s costs. That application was listed for consideration at the hearing of the substantive appeal.