- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
On Tower UK Ltd v British Telecommunications PLC
Factual and Procedural Background
The Digital Economy Act 2017 introduced the Electronic Communications Code ("the Code") into the Communications Act 2003, establishing a statutory regime under which an occupier of land may grant code rights to an operator for electronic communications apparatus ("ECA"). The dispute concerns whether a site provider bound by a code right can rely on a break clause in a code agreement to serve a statutory notice under paragraph 31 of the Code to terminate the agreement without also serving a contractual break notice.
The appellant, Company A, is a code operator providing infrastructure such as masts for mobile network providers. The appellee, Company B, is a major fixed-line telecom provider owning telephone exchanges nationwide. Company A installed ECA on the roof of a telephone exchange building owned by Company B pursuant to a code agreement and lease granted in December 2021, which included a break clause allowing Company B to serve a break notice under certain conditions.
In October 2022, Company B served two notices on Company A: a break notice under the lease's break clause terminating the lease in November 2023, and a paragraph 31 notice under the Code proposing to terminate the code agreement in April 2024. Company A contested the validity of these notices, serving a counter-notice and applying to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for an order to continue or modify its code rights.
The case was initially transferred to the First-tier Tribunal but then returned to the Upper Tribunal for determination of three preliminary issues: (1) whether the lease is a code agreement; (2) whether the contractual break notice was valid; and (3) whether the paragraph 31 notice was valid if the break notice was invalid. The Upper Tribunal decided in February 2024 that the lease was a code agreement, both notices were valid, and the paragraph 31 notice did not require a valid break notice to be served in addition.
Company A was granted permission to appeal on issues 2 and 3, contending that the Upper Tribunal erred in law and procedure regarding the interpretation and validity of the notices.
Legal Issues Presented
- Is the lease dated 23 December 2021 a code agreement pursuant to the Electronic Communications Code and does Company A enjoy rights under the Code over the telephone exchange building and land?
- Is the contractual break notice served by Company B valid and effective to terminate the lease on the stated termination date?
- If the break notice is invalid, is the paragraph 31 notice served under the Code valid and effective or of no effect?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The paragraph 31 notice cannot be valid unless the contractual break notice has been validly served and exercised in accordance with the lease terms.
- The Upper Tribunal erred in construing paragraph 31(3)(b) of the Code as not requiring service of a break notice.
- The evidence relied upon by the Upper Tribunal from a witness statement was not admitted and thus its reliance was procedurally unfair.
- The break notice was invalid because Company B did not properly rely on the correct termination ground under the lease.
Appellee's Arguments
- Paragraph 30 of the Code creates security of tenure by statutory continuation of code rights, rendering the service of a break notice unnecessary for a valid paragraph 31 notice.
- The statutory termination scheme under paragraph 31 replaces contractual termination mechanisms.
- The break notice was valid, or alternatively, the paragraph 31 notice was valid even if the break notice was not.
- The Upper Tribunal did not err in admitting evidence or in its factual findings on Company B's intention to surrender the leasehold interest.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Cornerstone Telecommunications Limited v Compton Beauchamp Estates Limited [2022] UKSC 18 | Interpretation of the Electronic Communications Code, relationship between Parts 4 and 5, and statutory continuation of code rights under paragraph 30(2). | The court adopted Lady Rose JSC's analysis to confirm that code agreements continue statutorily after contractual expiration or termination, and that Part 5 applies only after statutory continuation. |
| Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Limited [2015] UKSC 72 | Implied contractual terms necessary to make a contract workable. | The court applied the principle to imply a requirement that the break notice must state the ground relied upon to be valid. |
| R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13 | Principles of statutory interpretation focusing on purpose and context. | Guided the court's interpretation of the Code provisions in light of statutory purpose and scheme. |
| Bloomsbury International Limited v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2011] UKSC 25 | Statutory interpretation emphasizing the importance of the statute's context and purpose. | Supported the interpretive approach adopted by the court. |
| R (PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28 | Purpose and scheme of legislation as frame of orientation for statutory language. | Cited for the principle that statutory purpose informs the meaning of statutory provisions. |
| Keith Davy (Contractors) Limited v Ibatex Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 740 | Grounds for setting aside a decision due to procedural unfairness. | Referenced in assessing whether reliance on inadmissible evidence rendered the Upper Tribunal's decision unjust. |
| Ramsbury Properties Limited v Ocean View Construction Limited [2024] UKPC 40 | Application of repudiatory breach doctrine to leases and tenancies. | Used to illustrate that unaccepted repudiatory breaches do not automatically terminate contracts and to support the court's interpretation of the Code. |
| Commercial Properties Limited v Wood [1968] 1 QB 15 | Effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 on termination of tenancies. | Distinguished from the Code provisions, highlighting differences in statutory language and termination mechanisms. |
| Scholl Manufacturing Company Limited v Clifton (Slim-Line) Limited [1967] Ch 41 | Substitution of statutory termination provisions for contractual terms under the 1954 Act. | Distinguished to show that the Code does not replicate all features of the 1954 Act, particularly regarding break clauses. |
| Howard v Pickford Tool Company Limited [1951] 1 KB 417 | Doctrine relating to repudiatory breach and contract termination. | Quoted to emphasize that unaccepted repudiation does not terminate a contract, supporting the court's statutory construction. |
| EE Limited v Stephenson [2021] UKUT 167 (LC) | Legislative purpose of the Code to confer broader rights on operators without intruding on contractual rights. | Supported the court's conclusion that the Code does not override contractual break clause requirements. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of the Electronic Communications Code, focusing on the interplay between paragraphs 30 and 31. Paragraph 30 provides for statutory continuation of code rights after the expiration or termination of a code agreement under its contractual terms, thus creating a form of security of tenure for operators.
The court rejected the argument that paragraph 31 permits a site provider to serve a termination notice without exercising or complying with the contractual break clause. The word "could" in paragraph 31(3)(b) was interpreted as referring to a hypothetical ability to terminate under the contract, not the actual exercise of a break clause. The court emphasized that the contractual terms of the break clause, including any conditions precedent or subsequent and the requirement to serve a valid break notice, remain binding and are not overridden by the Code's statutory provisions.
The court analyzed the lease's break clause, noting five specific landlord termination rights, each with defined conditions. It found that Company B's reliance on the catch-all termination right (sub-clause 5.8(b)(v)) was improper because the real reason for termination fell within another termination right (sub-clause 5.8(b)(i)) which was not exercisable at the relevant time. Consequently, the break notice was invalid.
Regarding procedural fairness, the court acknowledged that the Upper Tribunal erred in relying on inadmissible witness evidence but held that this did not render the decision unjust given the other evidence and pleadings.
The court distinguished the Code's regime from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, noting that the Code does not contain language ousting contractual termination provisions and does not require service of a break notice to be supplanted by a paragraph 31 notice. It also rejected the analogy with the 1954 Act and the suggestion that the Code allows termination without compliance with contractual break clause conditions.
In sum, the court concluded that a site provider must comply with the contractual break clause, including exercising the break right and serving a valid break notice, before serving a paragraph 31 notice under the Code to terminate a code agreement. The statutory continuation under paragraph 30 applies only after contractual termination or expiration.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision was to UPHOLD THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL ON GROUNDS 1 AND 3, concluding that:
- The lease is a code agreement under the Electronic Communications Code.
- A paragraph 31 notice to terminate a code agreement cannot be validly served unless the site provider has first validly exercised and complied with the contractual break clause, including serving a valid break notice.
- The break notice served by the appellee was invalid because it relied on an inapplicable termination ground.
The direct consequence is that the paragraph 31 notice served by the appellee was invalid, and the code agreement continues. The court clarified that the Code does not displace or override contractual termination provisions and that statutory continuation under paragraph 30 only arises after contractual termination or expiration.
No new precedent was established beyond the interpretation of the specific Code provisions in this context and the reaffirmation that contractual break clauses must be complied with before statutory termination notices under the Code can be effective.
Alert