![[2025] UKUT 280 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Conclusion on the Dale Park test
Conclusion on the Dale Park test
In light of what I have said above, it is difficult to see why the FTT, with the Dale Park test in mind (as it certainly had, since it set it out at paragraph 51 of its decision), would not have decided that the appellant should have the right to share the ECA, the site and the Rights (or “the Property and the Rights” as the draft clause put it) with its Category B customers as well as its Category A customers. To understand why it did not do so we have to look again at paragraphs 59 to 63 of its decision.
- 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