A law firm for life

Do you have telecommunications masts or other apparatus on your land?

If so the Electronic Communications Code 2017 (the Code) governs how that is dealt with including rent and restrictions on removal.  Code rights can be enforced against a landowner or an occupier by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland (which has jurisdiction for Code rights cases in Scotland).  The two cases discussed below are most likely to be persuasive if determining a similar issue north of the border.

The legislation which came into force last year has had an impact across all of the UK and so far we have seen a number of cases involving the legislation in England only.  Both cases concern a joint venture company, Cornerstone (formed by Vodafone and Telefonica) who applied for an order from the Upper Tribunal to impose Code rights on landowners in relation to sites that continued to be occupied by Vodafone following the expiry of previous Code agreements.

In Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v. Keast [2019] UKUT 116 (LC) (Keast) a number of questions were addressed:

  1. Can an operator seek Code rights over land on which there is already electronic communications apparatus?

Under the Code an operator can only seek Code rights over “land”, (the definition in paragraph 108 of the Code excludes electronic communications apparatus). This prevents one operator seeking to assert Code rights against another operator’s electronic communications apparatus.  So, for example, Vodafone cannot seek code rights over electronic communications apparatus belonging to O2.

Under common law if something is fixed onto land it may become part of the land itself.  Applying this well established principle, lawyers for the landowner argued that, because Vodafone’s existing electronic communications apparatus was affixed to the land, it had become part of the land and therefore the operator was precluded from claiming Code rights against that land because it consisted of, in part, electronic communications apparatus belonging to another operator.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed this argument under paragraph 101 of the Code – any electronic communications apparatus installed pursuant to Code rights, no matter how firmly affixed to the land, does not by virtue only of that attachment become land.  Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal took the view that the operator was not seeking to assert Code rights against electronic communications apparatus.   Effectively they dismissed the notion that the electronic communications apparatus has become part of the land.   (This sets the electronic communications apparatus apart from other fixtures (such as sheds or buildings) that would normally become part of land.)

The landowner’s lawyers argued further by putting forward the proposition that, if the electronic communications apparatus did not form part of the land, the operator could only claim Code rights over such part of the land as was not occupied by the electronic communications apparatus.  This proposition was dismissed and the Upper Tribunal which decided that “the prohibition of the acquisition of Code rights over electronic communications apparatus does not mean that it is impossible to acquire Code rights over land where electronic communications apparatus is present”.  So new it would appear that Code rights could be applied even if the land is occupied by existing electronic communications apparatus.

  1. Does the Upper Tribunal have jurisdiction to impose positive obligations on a landowner when imposing Code rights?

Interestingly the Upper Tribunal refused to rule that it was beyond its jurisdiction to impose positive obligations on a landowner when imposing Code rights.   It stated that “all draft terms can be considered a matter of discretion” and therefore the operator “may have an uphill struggle to persuade the tribunal that some of them are appropriate”.  This would suggest that the question will be dealt with on an individual basis at the complete discretion of the Tribunal and it may be difficult for the operator to persuade the Tribunal to impose positive obligations on landowners.

  1. Could Cornerstone claim Code rights where Vodafone’s lease of the site was continuing?

The Upper Tribunal made no decision on this question but it has been answered in part by the second case below.

In the second case, (Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v. Compton Beauchamp Estates Limited [2019] UKUT 107 (LC) (Beauchamp)) the question asked of the Upper Tribunal essentially the same as question 3 above?

Paragraph 9 of the Code makes it clear that where there is an existing agreement covering Code rights then Code rights can only be conferred by the occupier of the land in question.  This is factual – essentially the question is who is in occupation at the relevant time?  It is important to note that a legal right to possession is not enough where someone else is in actual occupation.

It is not clear whether the same principle applied to Code rights imposed by the Upper Tribunal. The lack of clarity arises because Paragraph 20 refers to an agreement being imposed upon a “relevant person” rather than an occupier or landowner.

The Upper Tribunal concluded that paragraph 20 “refers to a ‘relevant person’ because two different types of order may be made by the tribunal” under that provision. The two types of order that can be made are the imposition of an agreement:

  • by which Code rights are conferred – this can be imposed on an occupier of the land in question; and
  • to be bound by Code rights – which can be imposed on someone else.

The Upper Tribunal offers further clarification in saying that it could “compel the grant of new rights by a site owner to an operator which is itself in occupation but it cannot compel the grant of rights by a person who is not in occupation to an operator who is not in occupation”. Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to impose an order on the landowner, conferring Code rights on the operator because the landowner was not in occupation.

The decision in the first case that an operator can seek Code rights against a site on which electronic communications apparatus already exists will no doubt encourage operators, whilst at the same time disappoint landowners.

However, this decision needs to be reconciled with second case which discussed the notion that an order can only be made against the occupier of land to impose Code rights.   In light of this it may be that we will see more co-operation between operators and existing operators (occupiers) in proceedings involving Code rights and both the operators and the landowners will need to ensure they are aware of who is in occupation of the land in question at the relevant time of any proceedings.

If you are considering entering into any agreements involving electronic communications apparatus please contact us for advice at the outset.

Join the McKinstry family
Some of our happy clients
  • All very prompt, efficient, clear, friendly and personable. Not overwhelming with legal jargon. Many thanks for making the process of setting up a will so straightforward.

    Mrs D, Troon
  • We required our Wills to be amended and that was done without any problems whatsoever.

    Mrs F, Ayr
  • Very business-like and helpful

    Mr M, Ayr
  • I was very impressed with the professionalism shown by all members of staff I had any dealing with. All calls and emails were relevant to the sale of my flat. All questions I had were dealt with at the time. For any further legal matters I will certainly be using The McKinstry Company

    Mr H, Ayr
  • Excellent service most happy with attentiveness and customer service.

    Mr F, Condorrat
  • Nat & Libby efficiently dealt with every question I had.

    Mrs K, Ayr
  • Kirsty understood our weird schedule when we were often 8 hours behind UK time, and simplified things for us by liaising via email. She was extremely approachable and dependable. In Kirsty’s absence, Jodie and Nathaniel would step in and communicate with us, and were very helpful too.

    Mrs N, Ayr
  • Great service and always on hand to answer our questions. Prompt and efficient response.

    Mr H, Ferniegair
  • Questions and communication were answered promptly

    Mr W, Sinclairston
  • Speaking from my own personal experience I was perfectly happy with the service I received. Everything was done to my satisfaction.

    Mrs I, Largs
  • Very efficient, timely and very mannerly on the phone

    Mr McN, Mauchline
  • The service was superb.  Kirsty and team were extremely helpful.

    Mr and Mrs R, Ayr
  • First class service from start till finish. Always there to give help and advice.

    Mr R, Ayr
  • Great service and advice from a good professional company.

    Mr R, Kilmarnock
  • Excellent, very friendly and professional. I will be using you for all my property transactions in the future!

    Mrs S, Godstone
  • My case was handled sensitively and smoothly.

    Mr N, Ayr
  • Everyone concerned in the sale of our property was very efficient and kept us up to date with all happenings.

    D Ferguy, Cookstown
  • Great service.  Would recommend you to others.

    Mr S, Kirkmichael
  • Communication was always available when required. Made me feel confident throughout the process.

    Mr L, Ayr
  • Always replied or phoned back when I needed my questions answered.

    Miss McF, Patna
  • A very prompt and friendly service, a pleasure to deal with.

    Mr R, Aberdeen
  • Robert was very supportive.

    M Carruthers, Kilmarnock.
  • Great, Rebecca was very pleasant to deal with and went out of her way to help with our case

    S Everett, Kilbarchan
  • The solicitor / paralegal I was dealing with was very professional and performed to a high standard. I was very impressed.

    B Ferguson, Methil
  • Local firm, word of mouth good reports.

    K Rooney, Glasgow
  • All queries were dealt with in a prompt and professional manner and I was kept informed of progress as events developed. Thank you very much for making a difficult situation much easier to deal with.

    Mrs McG, Ayr
  • Communication via telephone and email was regular, prompt and comprehensive. All queries and questions were answered with no delays or problems. My experience with the McKinstry Company was pleasant and smooth.

    Mr McK, Ayr
  • My family and I received excellent service from everyone with whom we had contact. The service was of the highest standard and, as I have in the past, I will continue to recommend the company to anyone seeking legal assistance.

    Mrs S, Ayr
  • All emails and calls were dealt with promptly. Very impressed. Very very pleased with service.

    Mr and Mrs H, Hull
  • I enjoy the friendly atmosphere. Very professional.

    Mrs A, Ayr
  • Mr Honeyman was very professional and knowledgeable which made us feel reassured. Very happy with the service and if I needed a solicitor again I would get in touch.

    Mr B, Ardrossan
  • Prompt quick efficient communication.

    Mrs K, Cumnock
  • Ease of making appointments and timescale for completion of business all good.

    Mr & Mrs T, Maybole
  • Gave reassurance and comfort at a stressful time. I felt ten times better after our first meeting and support provided ultimately exceeded my desired outcome.

    Mr N, Saltcoats
  • The supportive way that the advice was provided along with the willingness to fit appointments in with our requirements

    Mr R, Ayr
  • The whole process was handled with upmost professionalism throughout.

    Mr McN, Kilwinning