Arqiva Services Ltd v AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd [2020] UKUT 195 (LC)
An operator whose contracted out lease expired prior to the Electronic Communications Code 2017 coming into force had no means of obtaining rights under that Code.
An operator whose contracted out lease expired prior to the Electronic Communications Code 2017 coming into force had no means of obtaining rights under that Code.
Facts
An operator (A) occupied a site with its electronic communications apparatus. A had been granted a 20 year lease that expired in October 2016. The lease had been contracted out of the security of tenure provisions contained in Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. However, A remained in occupation and, prior to the Electronic Communications Code 2017 (the Code) coming into force (on 28 December 2017), enjoyed rights under the Electronic Communications Code 1984 (the 1984 Code). The freeholder (W) acquired the site in 2014.
A sought from W new rights under the Code.
Issues
- On what basis was A in occupation of the site following the expiry of its lease?
- Could A obtain a renewal of code rights under Part 5 of the Code?
- Could A obtain new code rights under Part 4 of the Code?
Decision
- The parties agreed that, following the case of Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v Erimus Housing Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 303, A occupied under a tenancy at will (rather than under a periodic tenancy) whilst the parties negotiated for a new lease and the tribunal decided that nothing had happened since to change that status (negotiations had paused while the parties discussed a framework agreement that would apply to all their sites).
- Part 5 is concerned with the termination and modification of agreements and the renewal of rights. The transitional provisions of the Code apply the Code (including Part 5) with modifications to agreements relating to communications apparatus that were subsisting on the day that the Code came into force, but only where there is an “agreement in writing” for the purposes of the 1984 Code. A was occupying under a tenancy at will that arose after the expiry of the fixed term of A’s lease which was on the same terms as that lease (so far as relevant and consistent with a tenancy at will). It was, however, an unwritten agreement. The only agreement in writing was the expired lease and it was W’s conduct that provided the continued permission for A to remain on site. Part 5 of the Code did not therefore apply.
- Part 4 (paragraph 20) is concerned with the imposition of new code rights by the court. However, in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1755, the Court of Appeal held that code rights under paragraph 20 could only be conferred by the occupier of a site and there was no jurisdiction to impose an agreement on a landowner where a third-party operator remained in occupation of a site. The tribunal therefore concluded (extremely reluctantly) that A (as an operator in occupation without existing code rights) could not make an application for the imposition of new code rights on W (as the landowner) under paragraph 20.
Point to note/consider
The judge noted the serious difficulties her decision will cause and suspected that the law had taken a wrong turn at some point. As it stands, operators in the same position as A (i.e. those whose contracted out leases expired before the Code came into force) are effectively ‘shut out’ from the Code and are in danger of being held to ransom by landowners (exactly the situation that the Code was intended to avoid in the first place).
The judge did suggest a couple of possible workarounds. One might involve the sitting operator itself conferring code rights on another ‘friendly’ operator and then applying under the Code for the landowner to be bound by those rights. Another might involve the operator moving out and starting again (wasting time and money and causing its services to be interrupted). Neither of these are very satisfactory and an appeal to the Court of Appeal seems inevitable.
Contact

David Harris
Professional Development Lawyer
david.harris@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 934 2019
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Opinion
What’s lurking in your garden? The UK’s most dangerous and invasive plants
Opinion
Landowner fined £15,000 after public attacked by cows
Legal Update
The future of autonomous technology - August 2023
Legal Update
Polluters to face unlimited penalties under new legislation
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Legal Update
Browne Jacobson grows Cardiff team with two new appointments
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage supply contracts and avoid disputes
Legal Update
Higher-risk buildings – are you ready for 30 September 2023?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Legal Update
Government to expand network and information systems regulations
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Opinion
New provisions for higher-risk residential buildings now in force
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Legal Update
UK Government publishes the Online Safety Bill: an overview
Legal Update
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update
Update on the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) – Important Dates and Deadlines Looming
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Natural England on investigation of ‘first in its kind’ sentenced Devon farmer
Opinion
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain: positive for nature and an opportunity for landowners
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Opinion
Logistics firm fined for multiple failings leading to asbestos exposure
Logistics company Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.
Published Article
Consumer duty part 2 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Opinion
Directors fined for unsafe removal of asbestos
Two directors of a construction company were fined after failing to ensure the safe removal of asbestos from a plot of land. On 14 and 15 November 2021, Directors Anthony Sumner and Neil Brown, of Waterbarn Limited were involved in the uncontrolled removal of asbestos material from a plot of land in Grasscroft, Oldham.
Opinion
Don't look down
An engineering company in Tyne and Wear was fined £20,000 after a worker fractured his pelvis and suffered internal injuries after falling through a petrol station forecourt canopy, whilst he was replacing the guttering.
Legal Update
DSA approved: Targeted Advertising Rules explained
Legal Update
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).