Executive Summary
- The case concerns a jurisdictional dispute over whether claims for recovery of costs arising from damage to network infrastructure during street works should be resolved by arbitration or county court litigation.
- Cadent Gas Ltd challenges the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to hear CityFibre Ltd’s claim for repair costs under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
- The High Court judge ruled that such claims fall within a statutory “carve-out” excluding them from mandatory arbitration, thus supporting litigation in county courts.
- The decision is significant due to the volume of similar low-value claims and the impact on court resources and dispute resolution efficiency.
- Permission to appeal was granted, highlighting the novel statutory interpretation and public importance of the issue.
Sanctions Highlights
- — No sanctions implications identified in the case.
Emerging Risks
- Increased litigation in county courts for low-value street works claims may exacerbate existing delays in the justice system.
- Potential backlog and resource strain on courts, especially in London and the South-East, where small claims currently take an average of 67 weeks to resolve.
- Risk of increased legal costs disproportionate to claim values, as exemplified by £10,000+ legal fees on a £7,000 claim.
- Uncertainty over dispute resolution forum may delay settlements and increase adversarial proceedings.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case involves UK statutory undertakers and internet infrastructure providers, reflecting ongoing tensions in infrastructure management and regulatory frameworks within the United Kingdom.
- The ruling impacts the UK’s legal and regulatory environment for utility and telecom sectors, influencing how infrastructure disputes are resolved nationally.
- The decision may affect cross-sector cooperation and investment confidence in UK infrastructure projects due to procedural uncertainties.
Economic Intelligence
- The dispute concerns relatively modest sums (~£7,000 excluding costs), but the cumulative economic impact is significant given the volume of similar claims.
- Delays and increased litigation costs could raise operational expenses for statutory undertakers and network providers, potentially passed on to consumers.
- The ruling may influence contractual and risk management practices in the utilities and telecom sectors.
- Court delays and increased legal fees undermine cost-effective dispute resolution, affecting business efficiency and infrastructure maintenance timelines.
Strategic Recommendations
- Monitor the appeal outcome closely for final legal clarity on arbitration vs. litigation jurisdiction in street works claims.
- Prepare for increased litigation exposure and associated costs by reviewing contractual dispute resolution clauses and risk allocation.
- Engage with industry bodies and regulators to advocate for streamlined dispute resolution mechanisms to reduce court burdens.
- Consider alternative dispute resolution frameworks or pre-litigation settlement protocols to mitigate delays and costs.
- Assess operational impacts of potential delays in claim resolution on infrastructure maintenance and project planning.
---
**Source Notes:** Cadent Gas Ltd v CityFibre Ltd [2025] EWHC 910 (Comm) — https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/910.txt