header-logo header-logo

21 October 2020
Issue: 7907 / Categories: Legal News , TMT Law
printer mail-detail

New rent landscape for masts

A telecom operator must pay a landowner £5,000 per year for a rooftop phone mast in Peckham, South London, the Upper Tribunal has held in a landmark case

Telecom operators have been trying to reduce rents paid to mast site owners since December 2017 when the Electronic Communications Code came into force. However, the decision in CTIL v L&Q [2020] UKUT 0282 (LC) this week will help clarify the terms of agreements.

The tribunal considered market evidence for the first time, and decided deals negotiated before the commencement of the Code could not be taken as a reliable guide to values. The tribunal made clear that operators should share information on other transactions and experts should request information they reasonably require from their counterparts to enable them to provide their evidence.  

Kary Withers, partner at Clarke Willmott, who acted for landowners L&Q, said: ‘This is the first time that market evidence of new code deals has been considered by a tribunal and that is why a figure of £5,000 pa as opposed to £1,000 at a previous tribunal case involving a property in Islington, has been arrived at.’

The tribunal indicated there was ‘no reason to expect that the market value of a site providers agreement to confer code rights over a roof top site on any different residential building will be much more or less…we would not be surprised if values in other parts of the country were not in the same narrow bracket’.

Annual payments rather than a one-off fee should be made for a ten-year agreement, where the freeholder insures and maintains the building and allows for access, while the operator bears the cost of shifting its equipment where the landowner needs to carry out essential repairs, the tribunal held.

Issue: 7907 / Categories: Legal News , TMT Law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll