![[2025] UKUT 280 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Conclusion on grounds 2, 3 and 5
Conclusion on grounds 2, 3 and 5
Accordingly I agree with the appellant that had the FTT applied the Dale Park test correctly it would have decided that the lease should grant the appellant the rights to share the ECA, the site and the Rights. It did not do so because it misconstrued the effect of the amendments to the Code made by the PSTI 2022. I set aside the FTT’s decision and substitute the Tribunal’s decision that the sharing term is to be as set out in paragraph 34 above without the emboldened words.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The background
- The parties
- These proceedings
- The provisions of Part 5 of the Code about new agreements
- Sharing terms in Code agreements
- The Compton Beauchamp point
- The 2022 amendments to the Code
- The disputed term about sharing and the FTT’s decision
- The appeal
- The evidence of the appellant’s business need to share the site and Rights
- Loss or damage to the respondent as a result of the wider sharing rights
- Conclusion on the Dale Park test
- The FTT’s decision: did it misunderstand the PSTI 2022?
- Conclusion on grounds 2, 3 and 5
- Grounds 1 and 4
- The cross-appeal
- The clauses about wayleaves and conduits
- The right to object to planning applications
- Conclusions