Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd

An operator with electronic communications apparatus installed on a site is not to be regarded as the 'occupier' for the purposes of paragraph 9 of the Electronic Communications Code when seeking new code rights. The Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider applications under Part 4 of the Code from such operators. However, the outcome depends on the factual status of occupation and the nature of the agreement in force, as clarified in each appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd; Respondent: Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd; Respondent: Ashloch Ltd; Respondent/intervener: AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd; Appellant: On Tower UK Ltd (formerly Arqiva Services Ltd)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in On Tower; appeal dismissed in Compton Beauchamp; outcome in Ashloch pending further submissions.
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Transitional Provisions, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Code Rights, Occupier Definition, Court Imposed Agreements
Property Law Telecommunications Law Statutory Interpretation Electronic Communications Code Transitional Provisions Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Code Rights Occupier Definition +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd

Appellant

Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd

Respondent

Ashloch Ltd

Respondent

AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd

Respondent/intervener

On Tower UK Ltd (formerly Arqiva Services Ltd)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an operator already in occupation can apply for new or improved code rights under the Electronic Communications Code
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'occupier' in paragraph 9 of the Code
  3. 3 Interaction between the Code and transitional provisions

Ratio Decidendi

An operator with electronic communications apparatus installed on a site is not to be regarded as the 'occupier' for the purposes of paragraph 9 of the Electronic Communications Code when seeking new code rights. The Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider applications under Part 4 of the Code from such operators. However, the outcome depends on the factual status of occupation and the nature of the agreement in force, as clarified in each appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in On Tower; appeal dismissed in Compton Beauchamp; outcome in Ashloch pending further submissions.

Orders

  • Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider applications under Part 4 from operators in occupation.
  • On Tower's appeal allowed; application may proceed.