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

University of London v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2075

6 January 2020

An agreement permitting an operator access to carry out a survey can be imposed on an occupier under the Electronic Communications Code 2017.

Facts

The respondent telecommunications operator (C) wanted to access the roof of a hall of residence owned by the appellant (UoL) to carry out a survey and other non-intrusive investigations (known as a “multi-skilled visit”) to establish if the building was suitable to install electronic communication apparatus on its roof. C served a notice on UoL under paragraph 26 of the Electronic Communications Code 2017 (the Code) seeking the grant of interim code rights to access the building for the purposes of a multi-skilled visit. UoL initially objected to the grant of the right on the basis that the definition of “code right” in paragraph 3 of the Code did not expressly cover access for the purposes sought by C.

Issue

Was the definition of “code right” in paragraph 3 of the Code sufficiently wide to include a right of access to undertake a survey to assess the suitability of a building for the installation of electronic communications apparatus?

Decision

The right sought by C was covered by paragraph 3(d) of the Code. This included as a code right the right:

to carry out any works on the land for or in connection with the installation of electronic communications apparatus on, under or over the land…”.

The use of the phrase “for or in connection with” meant that it was enough that the works were in connection with a possible installation. The operations necessary to carry out a multi-skilled visit therefore amounted to “works” for the purpose of the Code, even if they were non-intrusive. It would make no difference if the multi-skilled visit ultimately concluded that the site was not suitable.

Points to note/consider

  1. The Court of Appeal has reached a pragmatic decision to fill a potential drafting gap in the Code. In reaching that decision, the Court was heavily influenced by the purpose of the Code which was to facilitate the improvement of electronic communications throughout the country, a purpose that could not sensibly be achieved unless operators could acquire the right to assess the suitability of potential sites.

  2. At this stage C was not seeking any permanent code rights under paragraph 20 of the Code. The Court was satisfied that the Code permitted a free-standing application to be made under paragraph 26, which did not need to be accompanied by an application under paragraph 20. Such a requirement would be impractical and would cause the parties to incur unnecessary costs, especially as, if the multi-skilled visit revealed that the building was not suitable, C would have no need to seek a permanent agreement under paragraph 20.

focus on...

Shining a light: practical tips around Chinese buyers investing in UK property

View our on-demand video. In these uncertain times, clarity is what people seek. That is why we are “Shining a Light” and providing some practical training as regards property ownership and tax in the UK.

View

Legal updates

Vodafone Ltd v Hanover Capital Ltd [2020] EW Misc 18 (CC)

The first reported case on how a court determines rent on the renewal of a lease of a telecommunications mast site under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 following the Electronic Communications Code 2017 coming into force.

View

Legal updates

EMI Group Ltd v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd [2020] EWHC 2061 (Ch)

The court interprets the guarantee provisions in a lease to uphold their validity under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995.

View

Legal updates

Peninsula Securities Ltd v Dunnes Stores (Bangor) Ltd [2020] UKSC 36

An exclusivity covenant given by a landlord of a shopping centre to an anchor tenant was not declared unenforceable under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade.

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