Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited v On Tower UK Limited

Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited v On Tower UK Limited

The Tribunal held that the FTT's findings—that Icon's intention to redevelop was conditional on MNOs migrating and that there was no reasonable prospect of migration—were not plainly wrong and were supported by the evidence. The FTT correctly applied the legal tests for intention under paragraph 21(5) of the Code, and its evaluation of evidence, including undertakings and board minutes, was within the bounds of reasonable disagreement. The appeal was dismissed as the FTT's reasoning contained no gap in logic or material error.

Parties
Appellant: Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited; Respondent: On Tower UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Electronic Communications Code, Redevelopment Intention, Code Rights, Findings of Fact, Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, Franses Conditionality
Property Law Telecommunications Law Statutory Interpretation Electronic Communications Code Redevelopment Intention Code Rights Findings of Fact Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 +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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited

Appellant

On Tower UK Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact by the First-Tier Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether site owner intends to redevelop land under paragraph 21(5) of the Electronic Communications Code
  3. 3 Meaning of 'redevelop land' in the Code context

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the FTT's findings—that Icon's intention to redevelop was conditional on MNOs migrating and that there was no reasonable prospect of migration—were not plainly wrong and were supported by the evidence. The FTT correctly applied the legal tests for intention under paragraph 21(5) of the Code, and its evaluation of evidence, including undertakings and board minutes, was within the bounds of reasonable disagreement. The appeal was dismissed as the FTT's reasoning contained no gap in logic or material error.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order on cross-appeal
  • Right of appeal to Court of Appeal on point of law with permission