First-tier Tribunal Orders Claimant to Pay Respondent's Legal Expenses
📌 In brief
In a recent property dispute, the First-tier Tribunal ruled that the claimant must pay the respondent's legal expenses and costs. The decision was made on 7th August 2025 by Regional Judge D Jackson.
⚖️ Legal holding
The claimant must compensate the respondent for reasonable legal expenses and costs under the Electronic Communications Code.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant must pay the respondent's legal expenses and costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) case, the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's legal expenses and costs under the Electronic Communications Code. The decision was made on 7th August 2025 by Regional Judge D Jackson.
📚 Full judgment Official document
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER
(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
: BIR/00CN/EIA/2025/0619
Property
: Block W4, 153-167 (odd) [ADDRESS], 12-[ADDRESS] and 3-[ADDRESS], London
Claimant : [redacted] (Operator) [APPELLANT] : [COUNSEL] [RESPONDENT]
Respondent
: [redacted] (Site Provider)
Representative : [COUNSEL] LLP
Application : Electronic Communications Code
Paragraph 26 (MSV)
Date of Order : 7th August 2025
ORDER – Costs WRITTEN REASONS
2
PURSUANT TO my Order of 22nd May 2025
AND UPON READING Claimant’s Costs Submissions settled by [APPELLANT] [NAME] dated 23rd July 2025 and Respondent’s Submissions on Costs settled by [COUNSEL] of counsel dated 23rd July 2025
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Pursuant to Paragraph 84(2)(a) of the Code the Tribunal orders the Claimant to pay to the Respondent the sum of £7594 being compensation in respect of reasonable legal expenses in relation to the Agreement imposed upon the parties by Order of the Tribunal dated 22nd May 2025.
2. Pursuant to Paragraph 96(1) of the Code the Tribunal orders the Claimant to pay the Respondent’s costs of these proceedings, including for the avoidance of doubt costs submissions, summarily assessed in the sum of £10,000.
3. Payment of expenses and costs shall be made within 28 days of the date of this Decision.
D Jackson Regional Judge
REASONS
I have appended these brief reasons at the request of the Respondent following issue of my Order.
The claim for transactional costs is allowed in full. This is a high value building of considerable importance to the Commissioners. The site provider is entitled to recoup its reasonable legal expenses – all of them.
The reference to the Tribunal was made on 5th March 2025. Directions were issued on 21st March 2025 fixing a hearing for determination of the MSV application on 29th May 2025. The parties reached agreement, and a Consent Order was made on 22nd May 2025 disposing of proceedings.
The usual order is for an operator to pay a site provider’s costs of MSV proceedings. I see no reason to depart from that position.
This was a straightforward MSV. The Respondent prepared Response and Statement of Case. No work was done in the preparation of witness evidence. As the matter settled well in advance of the hearing counsel was not instructed to attend at the final hearing. However, counsel was requested to draft Costs Submissions at a cost of £2000.
3
The Respondent seeks litigation costs up to 25 June 2025 of £10,613, and the further sum of £2,584 for litigation costs incurred after 25 June 2025, in reviewing and updating costs submissions.
The Commissioners are able to recover VAT on fees and accordingly the VAT is not claimed.
I summarily assess the Respondents Costs in respect of this straightforward matter in the sum of £10,000 reflecting both the extent of the respondent’s success and the proportionate cost of achieving it. The sum I have summarily assesses includes both the costs of these proceedings and costs submission.
I would add that, whilst I have been greatly assisted by the written Submissions of [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME], in a straightforward case such as this in which no matters of principle are involved, brief submissions by way of a letter from solicitors from both sides will usually suffice on summary assessment.
D Jackson Regional Judge 8th August 2025
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 7 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Interim Rights for Mobile Connectivity
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Claimant Interim Rights for MSV
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Wins Removal of Apparatus Under Electronic Communications Code
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Secures Interim Code Rights for MSV on Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Secures Telecoms Rights at Crown Court Site
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Interim Rights for Electronic Communications Ins…
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The claimant can obtain interim rights if there is a good arguable case.
- Interim rights can be granted if the public benefit outweighs the prejudice to the site provider.
- A claimant can obtain rights to install telecommunications equipment on a site provided by the respondent.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant must compensate the respondent for reasonable legal expenses and costs under the Electronic Communications Code; this was dismissed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant must pay the respondent's legal expenses and costs.
Who was involved?
The claimant and the respondent were involved in a property dispute.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant must pay the respondent's legal expenses and costs because the Electronic Communications Code requires it.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Electronic Communications Code, specifically Paragraphs 84(2)(a) and 96(1), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the Electronic Communications Code mandates compensation for reasonable legal expenses and costs.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should expect to pay the other party's legal expenses and costs if they lose the case.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the legal expenses and costs were crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to get a solicitor for a case like this.
