Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal held that an operator does not need to be the original contracting party to a Code agreement to seek renewal rights under Part 5 of the Electronic Communications Code (the Code). It is sufficient for the operator to hold the benefit of the agreement. In other words, statutory renewal rights follow the practical enjoyment of Code rights, not the identity of the original signatories. This judgment clarifies who has standing to bring renewal proceedings under the Code and removes uncertainty about whether assignees and transferees can rely on Part 5 protections. The decision has clear practical importance: it confirms that Code rights can be safely transferred through assignments and corporate structures without losing statutory renewal protection. The ruling directly affects how telecoms operators, infrastructure investors, and landowners structure transactions, assess risk, and plan renewal strategy under the Code. Written by Katie Briggs, principal associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Private Client analysis: The High Court held that section 33(1) of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837) applied to a residuary gift to the testator’s sons ‘as shall survive me’, so that the issue of a predeceasing son took his share by statutory substitution. Survivorship wording, without more, did not demonstrate the contrary intention required to exclude section 33, and silence or a lacuna in the will was insufficient. Nor could extrinsic evidence assist where the clause was unambiguous. The decision reinforces the need for will drafters expressly to exclude section 33 where descendants of a predeceasing beneficiary are not intended to benefit, and provides useful guidance for contentious probate and estate administration practitioners. Produced in partnership with Tomos Rees of 5 Stone Buildings.

Bodies who perform obligations under statutory powers, for example, utility companies.

Statutory undertaker

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Statutory user rights—background Statutory user rights arose to assist local councils after the 1974 reorganisation of local government. Before the reorganisation, there were many urban district (or borough) councils (UDCs) in non-metropolitan England and Wales operating from substantial town hall buildings. Under the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972), all UDCs were abolished. They were very often replaced by much larger district councils operating under ongoing but substantially changed county councils. However, some functions, most notably the provision of parks, recreation grounds and allotments, were allocated to a new parish council covering exactly the same area as the former UDC. Many of these new urban parish councils acquired the status of a town council. Since most of the functions of the former UDC transferred to the new district council, the old town halls were transferred to the new district councils but the new town councils retained statutory user rights, so that, for example, the new town clerk would have an office or

Utilities The water, gas, electricity, communications and energy industries enjoy statutory rights of access onto private land to lay pipes, wires, cables and other service infrastructure. Landowners without private services rights may be able to require a supplier to use its compulsory purchase powers in order to comply with its 'duty to connect' and facilitate a development project. Compulsory powers The powers of each utility are given by industry-specific statutes. Despite broad similarity of approach, each utility has a specific compensation regime. Certain regimes limit the compensation to an amount equivalent to the depreciation of value of the land over which rights are exercised, rather than open market value. Electricity The Electricity Act 1989 (EA 1989) authorises bodies authorised to generate, transport or supply electricity to acquire a wayleave to install an electric line on, under or over private land, together with rights of access for inspection, maintenance and replacement. The wayleave arises where the owner or occupier fails to respond to a notice requiring him to grant the wayleave or gives it subject

A will ordered to be executed by the Court of Protection in respect of a patient who lacks testamentary capacity.

A court may order a stay of proceedings which puts a halt or ‘stay’ on the conduct of the proceedings to either a part or whole of a claim.

First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber President, Judge Alison McKenna, has made directions following an application from the Information Commissioner and in light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the temporary closure of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Under the directions, all proceedings under section 48 of the Data Protection Act 1998, section 162 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are stayed for a period of 28 days from 1 April 2020. Parties to any proceedings of the Tribunal may apply with reasons and on notice to the Information Commissioner for the amendment, suspension or setting aside of these directions. The directions shall be reviewed after 28 days.

Arbitration analysis: One of the first English decisions, relating to a disputed requirement to pay for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), has now reached the English Court of Appeal. The court overturned the High Court's decision to stay a consumer's claim for a declaration that an arbitration agreement in an auction platform's terms of use was unfair. The Court of Appeal refused to stay the English proceedings commenced by the consumer, Mr Soleymani, in favour of a New York arbitration initiated by Nifty Gateway LLC ('Nifty'), an online platform, pursuant to its terms of use. The Court of Appeal considered the UK consumer context to be a ‘powerful factor’ in refusing a stay of English proceedings under section 9(4) the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and directed a trial on the validity of the arbitration agreement. Written by Simon Chapman, partner, Charlie Morgan, senior associate, Olga Dementyeva, associate and Dan Huang, trainee solicitor at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

Arbitration analysis: The claimant, Mr Hunt, invested £1.05m in January 2023 through IPS Law LLP (‘IPS Law’), the second defendant, which was meant to hold the funds for the first defendant, Oceania Capital Reserves Ltd (‘Oceania’). IPS Law later apparently transferred the funds, but the circumstances in which that occurred (and the instructions on which IPS Law and its principal, Mr Farnell, the third defendant, relied) were unclear. Mr Hunt applied for an injunction to preserve the funds in IPS Law’s account. The defendants, in return, applied for a stay of the proceedings, arguing that the Investment Agreement between Mr Hunt and Oceania (with IPS Law as the ‘Investment Escrow Party’) referred disputes to arbitration. The court held that IPS Law was not a party to the arbitration clause and could not rely upon it under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999) (Mr Farnell accepted he was not a party). The court decided, however, that there was a serious issue to be tried in relation to the handling of Mr Hunt’s funds and accordingly granted a proprietary injunction. The case addresses issues over the court’s jurisdiction to order a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and its ability to order relief where funds held in a solicitors’ client account have been paid away apparently without instruction. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, Mr Justice Saini dismissed an application by two judgment debtors for a stay of execution of money judgments entered on arbitral awards under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The applicants argued that ongoing proceedings in Dubai concerning the beneficial ownership of the judgment creditor created a risk that payments would be misappropriated and irrecoverable (and that the judgment debtors would be prejudiced) if enforcement was allowed. The judge rejected that contention, holding there were no ‘special circumstances’ within CPR 83.7 that justified depriving the creditor of the immediate fruits of final awards. The Dubai proceedings, brought only after English challenges had been exhausted, were characterised as a collateral attack on the awards and an illegitimate attempt to delay enforcement. The decision underscores the high bar for stays of execution of arbitral awards and the English courts’ emphasis on finality and enforceability under the Arbitration Act 1996. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.