On Tower UK Limited v J.H. Green Limited

On Tower UK Limited v J.H. Green Limited

The Tribunal was entitled to grant On Tower unrestricted upgrading and sharing rights under the new agreement, as the terms of the existing lease were inconsistent with the aims of the Code, the operator's business needs and the public benefit justified wider rights, and the protections in the agreement and planning law were sufficient to address the site provider's concerns. Paragraph 17 sets a minimum, not a ceiling, and paragraph 34(12) does not impose a presumption against change.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: On Tower UK Limited; Respondent/appellant: J. H. & F. W. Green Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Lease Renewal, Upgrading and Sharing Rights, Statutory Interpretation
Land Law Telecommunications Law Electronic Communications Code Lease Renewal Upgrading and Sharing Rights Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

On Tower UK Limited

Claimant/respondent

J. H. & F. W. Green Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in granting unrestricted upgrading and sharing rights to the operator under a new agreement imposed pursuant to the Electronic Communications Code, Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003.
  2. 2 The proper approach to the significance of paragraph 34(12) (regard to existing agreement) and paragraph 17 (upgrading and sharing rights) of the Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to grant On Tower unrestricted upgrading and sharing rights under the new agreement, as the terms of the existing lease were inconsistent with the aims of the Code, the operator's business needs and the public benefit justified wider rights, and the protections in the agreement and planning law were sufficient to address the site provider's concerns. Paragraph 17 sets a minimum, not a ceiling, and paragraph 34(12) does not impose a presumption against change.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.