LC-2023-000734 - [2025] UKUT 00058 (LC)

Fecha: 20-Feb-2025

Heading

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKUT 00058 (LC)

Case Number: LC-2023-000734

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE

20 February 2025

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE – NEW AGREEMENT – renewal proceedings – termination proceedings – preliminary issues – whether substantial breaches – whether intention to redevelop – public benefit test - paras 31(4)(a), (c) and (d), Sch.3A, Communications Act 2003

BETWEEN:

VODAFONE LIMITED

Claimant

-and-

(1) ICON TOWER INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

(2) AP WIRELESS II (UK) LIMITED

Respondents

Land at Steppes Hill Farm (also referred to as land at Steps Hill Farm/Steps Hill Wood), South Street Road, Stockbury, Sittingbourne, ME9 7RB

The Chamber President, Mr Justice Edwin Johnson and Mrs Diane Martin TD MRICS FAAV

13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 18^th, 19^th, 21^st and 22^nd November 2024

Oliver Radley-Gardner KC and Emer Murphy, instructed by Osborne Clarke LLP, for the Claimant

Toby Watkin KC, Wayne Clark and Matthew Henderson, instructed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP, for the Respondents

The following cases are referred to in this decision:

Dellneed v Chin (1986) 53 P&CR 172

Teeside Indoor Bowls Ltd v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council [1990] 2 EGLR 87

Brumwell v Powys CC [2011] EWCA Civ 1613 [2012] L.&T.R. 14

EE Ltd v Chichester [2019] UKUT 164 (LC) [2019] L.&T.R. 21

Palisade Investments Ltd v Collin Estates Ltd [1992] 2 EGLR 94

Dolgellau Golf Club v Hett [1998] L.&T.R. 217

Northampton BC v Lovatt (1998) 30 HLR 875.

London Hilton Jewellers Ltd v Hilton International Hotels Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 112

Cunliffe v Goodman [1950] 2 KB 237

Betty’s Cafes Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd [1959] AC 20

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd [2022] UKSC 18 [2022] 1 WLR 3360

R (on the application of Save Britain’s Heritage) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 979 (Admin) [2011] Env. L.R. 6

S Franses Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] UKSC 62 [2019] AC 249

Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 20243 (Ch)

Heath v Drown [1973] 498

Evans v Marshall v Bertola [1973] 1 WLR 349

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287

Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers [2014] EWCA Civ 1373 [2015] ICR 272

Software Cellular Network Ltd v T-Mobile UK Ltd [2007] EWHC 1790 (Ch)

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v University of the Arts of London [2020] UKUT 248 (LC)

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v University of London [2018] UKUT 356 (LC)

Index

Introduction	Paragraphs 1-5
The conventions of this decision	Paragraphs 6-9
The parties	Paragraphs 10-11
Electronic communications apparatus	Paragraphs 12-14
The Vodafone Site	Paragraphs 15-18
The 2003 Agreement	Paragraphs 19-27
The Steps Hill Sites	Paragraphs 28-34
The Contribution Agreements	Paragraphs 35-45
The background to the Renewal Proceedings and the Termination Proceedings	Paragraphs 46-58
The Preliminary Issues	Paragraphs 59-61
Summary of the issues to be determined within the Preliminary Issues	Paragraphs 62-72
The Pounds Hill Site Proceedings	Paragraphs 73-80
Confidentiality	Paragraphs 81-90
The factual evidence	Paragraphs 91-94
The expert evidence	Paragraphs 95-99
Points preliminary to the Preliminary Issues	Paragraphs 100-102
Preliminary Issue (a) – analysis and determination	Paragraphs 103-194
(i) Has there been a breach or have there been breaches of the Alienation Clause?	Paragraphs 103-190
(ii) If the Alienation Clause has been breached, and if the breach is only a single breach, is a single breach sufficient to engage Paragraph (a)?	Paragraph 191
(iii) If the Alienation Clause has been breached, and if Paragraph (a) is engaged, was the breach or were the breaches substantial?	Paragraph 192
(iv) If Paragraph (a) is engaged, and if there has been substantial breach of the Alienation Clause, ought the 2003 Agreement to come to an end?	Paragraph 193
(v) Preliminary Issue (a) - conclusion	Paragraph 194
Preliminary Issue (c) – analysis and determination	Paragraphs 195-338
(i) The planning issues	Paragraphs 195-225
(ii) Do the Claimed Works constitute redevelopment of the land to which the code agreement relates or any neighbouring land, within the meaning of Paragraph (c)?	Paragraphs 226-271
(iii) Is there a time limit within which Icon must intend to carry out the Claimed Works?	Paragraphs 272-278
(iv) Can Icon intend to do works, within the meaning of Paragraph (c), which it has already carried out?	Paragraphs 279-300
(v) What intention does Icon have?	Paragraphs 301-318
(vi) Is Icon’s intention impermissibly conditional?	Paragraphs 319-331
(vii) Other issues within Preliminary Issue (c)	Paragraphs 332-336
(viii) Can Icon satisfy Paragraph (c)?	Paragraph 337
(ix) Preliminary Issue (c) - conclusion	Paragraph 338
Preliminary Issue (d) – analysis and determination	Paragraphs 339-400
(i) Is CTIL the occupier of the Vodafone Site for the purposes of Parts 2 and 4 of the Code?	Paragraphs 339-348
(ii) If so, is Vodafone unable to satisfy the public benefit test in Paragraph 21 because it could not seek a code agreement in respect of the Vodafone Site against Icon, but only against CTIL?	Paragraph 349
(iii) Is the First Condition met?	Paragraphs 350-379
(iv) Is the Second Condition met?	Paragraphs 380-400
(v) Preliminary Issue (d) - conclusion	Paragraph 401
The outcome of the Preliminary Issues	Paragraph 402