Vodafone Limited v Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited & Anor

Vodafone Limited v Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited & Anor

Vodafone did not breach the Alienation Clause, as CTIL acted as agent and not as independent occupier; Icon's redevelopment intention did not satisfy Paragraph 31(4)(c) because works already carried out cannot be intended, and removal of masts alone is not redevelopment; the Paragraph 21 public benefit test was met, as prejudice to Icon could be compensated by money and public benefit outweighed any detriment.

Parties
Claimant: Vodafone Limited; First Respondent: Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited; Second Respondent: AP Wireless II (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Electronic Communications Code Renewal and Termination Proceedings / Decision on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
All preliminary issues decided against the Respondents; Icon cannot rely on Paragraphs (a), (c), or (d) for termination.
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Code Agreement Renewal, Termination Grounds, Redevelopment Intention, Alienation Clause, Public Benefit Test, Planning Permission, Occupier Definition
Telecommunications Law Land Law Planning Law Electronic Communications Code Code Agreement Renewal Termination Grounds Redevelopment Intention Alienation Clause +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vodafone Limited

Claimant

Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited

First Respondent

AP Wireless II (UK) Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Electronic Communications Code Renewal and Termination Proceedings / Decision on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Vodafone breached the Alienation Clause by sharing rights with CTIL
  2. 2 Whether Icon intends to redevelop land/neighbouring land and cannot reasonably do so unless the code agreement ends
  3. 3 Whether Vodafone is entitled to a code agreement under the Paragraph 21 public benefit test

Ratio Decidendi

Vodafone did not breach the Alienation Clause, as CTIL acted as agent and not as independent occupier; Icon's redevelopment intention did not satisfy Paragraph 31(4)(c) because works already carried out cannot be intended, and removal of masts alone is not redevelopment; the Paragraph 21 public benefit test was met, as prejudice to Icon could be compensated by money and public benefit outweighed any detriment.

Court Disposition

All preliminary issues decided against the Respondents; Icon cannot rely on Paragraphs (a), (c), or (d) for termination.

Orders

  • Respondents cannot terminate the code agreement on grounds of substantial breach, redevelopment intention, or failure of public benefit test.
  • Vodafone is entitled to renewal of the code agreement; further proceedings to determine terms of renewal.