Telecoms Code vs. 1954 Act: Upper Tribunal Draws the Line
The recent Upper Tribunal ruling in Gravesham Borough Council v On Tower UK Ltd has provided important clarification on the interaction between the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the 1954 Act) and the Electronic Communications Code (the Code), especially regarding the ability of telecommunications operators to seek new rights after being refused a tenancy renewal under the 1954 Act.
Background: Gravesham Borough Council v On Tower UK Ltd
The case involved a dispute between Gravesham Borough Council, the landowner, and On Tower UK Ltd, a telecommunications infrastructure operator. On Tower occupied a site under a tenancy protected by the 1954 Act and sought a new lease. The Council opposed renewal on the grounds of redevelopment, and the court ultimately refused to grant a new tenancy.
Following this refusal, On Tower attempted to secure new rights under the Code, prompting a legal examination of whether the Code could be used to override a court’s decision under the 1954 Act.
The key legal issue was whether a telecoms operator, whose tenancy renewal has been refused under the 1954 Act, applies for Code rights over the same site.
The Tribunal Findings
- First Tier Tribunal (FTT): Initially, the FTT ruled in favour of On Tower, holding that operators could seek Code rights regardless of the reasons for the termination of their prior tenancy.
Upper Tribunal (UT): The UT overturned the FTT decision. It held that once a court has refused a new tenancy under the 1954 Act, operators cannot use the Code as an alternative route to remain in occupation. - The UT emphasised that the transitional provisions of the Digital Economy Act 2017 were designed to prevent overlapping rights. Parliament did not intend for operators to have an indefinite ability to pursue Code rights after losing protection under the 1954 Act.
Implications
For Landowners
- This decision offers clarity and certainty for landowners seeking to regain possession for redevelopment.
- If a court properly refuses a new tenancy under the 1954 Act (e.g., for redevelopment purposes under Section 30(1)(f)), operators cannot circumvent that outcome by invoking the Code.
For Operators
- Telecom providers must exercise caution when occupying sites under 1954 Act leases.
- If a tenancy renewal is refused by the court, the Code cannot be relied upon to secure continued access to the site.
Conclusion
The Upper Tribunal’s ruling in Gravesham Borough Council v On Tower UK Ltd reinforces the integrity of the 1954 Act process, ensuring that landowners can rely on its outcome without fear of subsequent challenge under the Code. At the same time, it sets a clear boundary for telecom operators, who must plan their leasehold strategies accordingly.
This decision underscores a balanced approach between enabling infrastructure development and upholding established property rights, providing legal certainty for both parties.
Contact our Property Disputes solicitors today
If you have any questions regarding the points raised in this article, please get in touch with our specialist Property Litigation team by using our online enquiry form or calling 0330 404 0738.
Tags: Dispute, Gravesham Borough Council v On Tower UK Ltd, Lawyers, Property, property dispute, Property Disputes, Solicitor, Solicitors
How can we help?
If you have an enquiry or you would like to find out more about our services, why not contact us?