0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

EE Ltd and another v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington [2019] UKUT 53 (LC)

3 April 2019

The first illustration we have of the price of rights granted under the Electronic Communications Code 2017.

Facts

The operator (EE) wanted to install and operate electronic communications apparatus on the roof of a block of flats owned by the London Borough of Islington (LBI). As the parties were unable to reach an agreement, EE applied to the Upper Tribunal (UT) to impose on LBI rights under the Electronic Communications Code 2017 (the New Code). The UT imposed an agreement in the form of a ten-year lease.

Issue

What consideration was payable by EE to LBI for the lease imposed by the UT? [The New Code changed the way rights are valued, focusing on the market value that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an arms’ length transaction in a ‘no-network’ world (i.e. assuming that the rights do not relate to the provision or use of an electronic communications network)]?

Decision

On the basis of the no-network assumption, the nominal value of the rights themselves was only £50 per annum. However, as LBI will also have obligations under the lease and will have to provide services to the building (there is no service charge), the UT decided that the parties would have agreed an annual rent of £1,000 (although it fixed the rent at £2,552 per annum, as that was what EE had offered to pay).

Points to note/consider

1. The reason this case is significant is because it is the first practical illustration we have of how the New Code may significantly reduce the sums that will be payable to landowners by operators under the New Code (although every case will of course turn on its own facts). The parties had in principle agreed that, under the old 1984 code (which did not value rights using the no-network assumption), the rights were worth £21,000 per annum (the UT made it clear that transactions under the 1984 code were not now useful comparables). Whilst the parties can agree whatever consideration they like where there is a consensual agreement to impose rights under the New Code, the way rights are valued under the New Code (coupled with the threat of an agreement being imposed against its will) will significantly affect a landowner’s negotiating position.

2. The UT also ruled on a few other issues in relation to the New Code: 

  • it had jurisdiction to impose a new lease on the parties (it was agreed that a consensual agreement to impose rights under the New Code could take the form of a lease);
  • although there is power to award a landowner compensation under the New Code for any loss or damage sustained due to the exercise of New Code rights (in addition to consideration for the imposed agreement), that compensation cannot include compensation for diminution in the value of a landowner’s property simply as a result of the imposition of an agreement under the New Code; and
  • once an order for imposing an agreement has been made under the New Code, the operative instrument is the order itself (i.e. there is no need for the parties to enter into any further document).

training and events

24Oct

Claims Club Manchester office

We will be discussing the Human Rights Act, school claims and a legal update on 'hot topics'.

View event

focus on...

Heat Networks - navigating the legal issues | Browne Jacobson LLP

Public and private bodies throughout the country are exploring their options for developing new networks and expanding existing networks, both with and without central government support.

View

Legal updates

public matters - October 2019

This month includes government outsourcing, amending contracts, land registration 2025 target for public sector, inquests, and public procurement with SMEs, Brexit and the mafia.

View

Upcoming webinars

SMCR - making it work for your business

In this webinar we will explain the practical steps that firms should take in order to be compliant with SMCR from 9 December 2019.

View

Legal updates

Foster carers are not ‘workers’ according to the Employment Tribunal

For anyone who has followed the evolving case law in the social care sector, this title is likely to raise some questions. Most notably, “What about the decision in Armes?”

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

David Harris

David Harris

Professional Development Lawyer

View profile

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up