Periodic 1954 Act tenants cannot seek renewal under Part 4 of the Code
In On Tower UK Limited (and another) v AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd, Judge Jackson has recently held that where an operator has a 1954 Act protected lease it cannot seek the imposition of Code rights under Part 4 of the Code, even though the agreement (1) may not be a ‘subsisting agreement’ within the terms of the transitional provisions and (2) the operator under such a periodic tenancy cannot seek renewal by serving a notice pursuant to s.26 of the 1954 Act. The judge held, however, that periodic licensees could have recourse to Part 4. His decision also considers the validity of notices served under the Code where the prescribed form used was said to have been completed defectively.
Wayne Clark acted for the site providers, AP Wireless, and was led by Toby Watkin KC and instructed by Daniel Cuthbert and Ella Carroll at Freeths. Imogen Dodds, led by Justin Kitson and instructed by Alicia Foo, James Lilley and Mairghread Yule at Pinsent Masons, acted for the operators. The decision can be viewed here.
Back to news listing
