The parties
The parties
The appellant is a wholesale infrastructure provider, or “WIP”, providing ECA for MNOs (both Code operators and others) to use. For example it provides mobile phone masts, and allows network operators to place antennae on its masts. Its customers typically also bring some of their own ECA to the site, including cabinets and cables. The appellant’s infrastructure is placed on land pursuant to agreements regulated by the Code and which include both the grant of Code rights and other terms. However, the Code does not regulate the placing of ECA on ECA; so the appellant’s customers pay a commercial rate for the right to place antennae on its masts, for example, without the benefit of the no network assumption.
The respondent’s business is the purchase and management of telecommunications sites such as mast sites; in some cases it takes intermediate leases of land already subject to Code agreements, making a capital payment to the original site provider and thenceforth being the immediate landlord to the operator, while in others it buys the freehold of the site, with or without some surrounding land. Unlike many site providers it is not using the site for a business unrelated to telecommunications – farming, for example, or offices where the site is a building. Its business is simply the acquisition and management of telecommunications sites for which it receives the consideration and compensation payable pursuant to the Code.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The background
- The parties
- These proceedings
- The provisions of Part 5 of the Code about new agreements
- Sharing terms in Code agreements
- The Compton Beauchamp point
- The 2022 amendments to the Code
- The disputed term about sharing and the FTT’s decision
- The appeal
- The evidence of the appellant’s business need to share the site and Rights
- Loss or damage to the respondent as a result of the wider sharing rights
- Conclusion on the Dale Park test
- The FTT’s decision: did it misunderstand the PSTI 2022?
- Conclusion on grounds 2, 3 and 5
- Grounds 1 and 4
- The cross-appeal
- The clauses about wayleaves and conduits
- The right to object to planning applications
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 280 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)