On Tower UK Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited

On Tower UK Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited

Site providers who grant exclusive possession and have no control over telecommunications sites are not responsible for safety or liable under health and safety legislation; therefore, lease terms should not impose unnecessary safety management obligations or access restrictions. Operator's business needs justify unrestricted rights to share and upgrade apparatus, and consideration is to be assessed using the Code's statutory assumptions, including alternative use value and agreed methodology.

Parties
Claimant: On Tower UK Limited; Respondent: AP Wireless II (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Reference Under Schedule 3 a to the Communications Act 2003 / Final Determination of Terms for New Leases
Outcome
References allowed; new leases to be granted on terms determined by Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Lease Renewal, Site Provider Liability, Access Rights, Sharing and Upgrading Apparatus, Consideration Assessment
Property Law Telecommunications Law Statutory Interpretation Electronic Communications Code Lease Renewal Site Provider Liability Access Rights Sharing and Upgrading Apparatus +1 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

On Tower UK Limited

Claimant

AP Wireless II (UK) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference Under Schedule 3 a to the Communications Act 2003 / Final Determination of Terms for New Leases

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Responsibility of site provider for safety of telecommunications sites
  2. 2 Extent of access, sharing, and upgrading rights under new leases
  3. 3 Appropriate terms for new Code agreements

Ratio Decidendi

Site providers who grant exclusive possession and have no control over telecommunications sites are not responsible for safety or liable under health and safety legislation; therefore, lease terms should not impose unnecessary safety management obligations or access restrictions. Operator's business needs justify unrestricted rights to share and upgrade apparatus, and consideration is to be assessed using the Code's statutory assumptions, including alternative use value and agreed methodology.

Court Disposition

References allowed; new leases to be granted on terms determined by Tribunal.

Orders

  • On Tower to be granted new 15-year leases for Audley House, Port Talbot, and Huntingdon sites on Tribunal-determined terms.
  • APW's requirements for access portal, restricted hours, notice of access, and additional safety management obligations are rejected.