Electronic Communications Code
Code operator in occupation of land under a subsisting agreement that is a 1954 Act tenancy cannot serve a para 20 Code notice seeking code rights with respect to the land; renewal of the tenancy can only be dealt with by utilising the procedure under the 1954 Act.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has decided in CTIL v Ashloch Ltd and APW Wireless II (UK) Ltd [2019] UKUT 0338 (LC) that the procedure under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Act cannot be sidestepped by an operator by serving a notice pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Code with respect to a “subsisting” tenancy protected by the 1954 Act. Any renewal of the tenancy can be made only in accordance with the 1954 Act. The Tribunal also determined that in relation to a new Code agreement, there can be no renewal or modification during its contractual term other than by agreement or pursuant to the procedure under Part 5. Again, Part 5 cannot be sidestepped by an operator by serving a notice pursuant to paragraph 20 seeking Code rights to be imposed in that way by way of renewal or modification.
This important decision represents the first time the Tribunal has had to consider the relationship between the new Electronic Communications Code and the 1954 Act.
Wayne Clark of Falcon Chambers, leading Jonathan Wills of Landmark Chambers acted for the site provider and Jonathan Seitler QC of Wilberforce Chambers leading James Tipler of Falcon Chambers acted for the operator.
Download DocumentBack to news listing
