2020年9月1日，上法庭（陆地会议厅）（“ ut”) handed down judgment in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v University of the Arts London.

在许多情况下，这是基石电信基础设施有限公司（“基石”) has brought before the UT and courts relating to the 2017 Electronic Communications Code (“Code”）。

背景

运营商Cornerstone正在根据《法规》第20段寻求永久权利，以在伦敦艺术大学（University of Arts London）拥有的建筑物屋顶上安装和操作机构（“ ual”) after having been granted interim rights over the site in earlier litigation.

UAL and a developer had entered into a complex development agreement including a sale and lease-back. The lease-back contained a rolling break clause in favour of UAL, conditional on delivering up the site with vacant possession, free from any third-party rights and free of telecommunications apparatus. There was a strong incentive for UAL to exercise the break clause promptly, as after 18 months the rent would increase from nil to £3 million per annum.

代码

第20段使UT能够强加协议，如果满足第21段中规定的两个条件，则将守则权利授予运营商和土地占用者：该订单对相关人员造成的偏见能够由钱;而且，公共利益可能是由于订单的命令所带来的，超过了对相关人员的偏见。

The Submissions

UAL认为，第21段中的任何条件均未满足。它认为，授予协议的UT将导致他们未能履行根据《发展协议》的义务，并且根据第20段授予的协议的任期安全将禁止UAL能够置于空缺的房屋，因此无法行使其休息条款，随后冒着长期诉讼的风险来删除操作员。这些因素，包括声誉风险，其与学生关系的风险以及对此寻求禁令的潜力，无法用金钱来量化。正是UAL的意见是，公共利益不可能超过这种极端的偏见。

Cornerstone referenced the current pandemic to substantiate their position that the development may not go ahead as intended and the prejudice to UAL was therefore open to doubt. Although not denying that litigation may be required, Cornerstone referred to UAL’s submission that litigation would not progress quickly enough to remove the operator in good time as being exaggerated.

判断

The UT declined to impose a Paragraph 20 agreement, finding that the conditions in Paragraph 21 had not been met. The prejudice caused to UAL by imposing an agreement could not be adequately compensated in money, nor would the public benefit likely to have arisen from the agreement have outweighed that prejudice.

The UT acknowledged the public need for availability of electronic communications, particularly at the present time of the pandemic, but noted that Parliament could not have intended a site owner to comply with this public duty at all costs or it would not have provided for relief where the site owner would suffer prejudice that was not capable of being adequately compensated.

该案件提供了有用的考虑，即通过金钱充分补偿的含义，以及在双方都是公共服务提供者的重建背景下，公共利益与偏见相关方之间的相互作用。