A landmark moment

In a significant development for the UK telecommunications sector, the Upper Tribunal has issued its first judgment substantively addressing the termination provisions in the Electronic Communications Code. Vodafone Ltd v Icon Tower Infrastructure Ltd and another [2025] UKUT 00058 LC marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation and application of the code. The case relates to Vodafone’s telecommunications site known as “Steps Hill” and is the first termination claim under Part 5 of the code to reach trial. Initially, Vodafone sought to renew its existing code agreement. However, Icon, the landowner and a designated infrastructure provider under the code, sought to terminate Vodafone’s agreement without renewal. The case was heard together with another dispute involving the same parties relating to a lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. This overlapped with an allegation of breach made against Vodafone in the Steps Hill case. However, the other issues addressed in the case, concerning redevelopment and public benefit, are of most interest to the wider industry. Summary of the issues The code grants operators continuing rights to retain existing apparatus in, on or over land, unless a landowner can prove at least one of four specified termination grounds, or those rights are renewed. In this case, Icon relied on three of these grounds – breach and: Redevelopment: Icon argued that Vodafone’s existing code agreement should be terminated to facilitate the recent construction of Icon’s own communications tower near to Vodafone’s site. The tribunal assessed each stage of the development scheme and determined that Icon lacked the requisite intention to redevelop to justify terminating Vodafone’s agreement. It therefore rejected Icon’s argument. Public benefit: Icon claimed that Vodafone’s site prejudiced Icon’s potential future operations from its new neighbouring mast, and that this prejudice outweighed the public benefit of Vodafone’s site remaining operational. The tribunal also rejected this argument. Redevelopment relevance As this is the first time the tribunal has considered these termination grounds under the code in detail, the judgment offers several principles of broader relevance. To provide context to the redevelopment principles, it is worth noting the wording of the redevelopment termination ground under the code: “The site provider intends to redevelop all or part of the land to which the code agreement relates, or any neighbouring land, and could not reasonably do so unless the code agreement comes to an end.” To qualify as relevant redevelopment works on which a landowner can rely to seek to terminate an operator’s existing code agreement, those works must: be carried out by or on behalf of the site provider – otherwise, the redevelopment intention is not the site provider’s; not have been carried out already (and therefore be intended in the future); be carried out within a reasonable time, such that there is sufficient intention to do them; be carried out to land – under the code, electronic communications apparatus is not land, therefore the removal of a telecommunications mast itself does not constitute relevant redevelopment works; and if carried out to neighbouring land, the neighbouring land must be in close geographical or physical proximity to the operator’s apparatus – if the redevelopment land is too far away from the operator’s apparatus, it cannot be relied on. Public benefit In relation to public benefit, the tribunal rejected Icon’s argument that its new nearby tower meant that Vodafone’s existing mast offered no additional public benefit. The tribunal considered the fact that Vodafone would have had to pay far more to use Icon’s new tower (than would be payable under the code if it retained its existing site) to be a key element of the public benefit attributable to Vodafone’s existing site. Icon also sought to rely on alleged wider public disbenefits to diminish the public benefit attributable to Vodafone’s existing site. The tribunal also dismissed this – even if there were any such disbenefits, only the prejudice to Icon is relevant for the purposes of code termination. This landmark judgment underscores the robustness of the code in protecting operators’ rights and offers crucial insight into the correct interpretation and application of the termination grounds under the code. By providing guidance and a clearer framework for both operators and landowners navigating the complexities of telecommunications site agreements, it should positively influence future engagement between operators and landowners, particularly when operators seek to renew existing code agreements. Emily Van Schalkwyk is a property litigation partner and George Oakes is a property disputes senior associate at Osborne Clarke Image © Umang Patel/Pexels