• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Court of Appeal provides clarification on the Electronic Communications Code & Concurrent Leases

The plethora of case law clarifying the interpretation of the Electronic Communications Code (“Code”) introduced by the Digital Economy Act 2017 continues to expand with the latest decision from the Court of Appeal. In Potting Shed Bar Gardens Ltd (formerly known as Gencomp (No.7) Limited) v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 825 the Court of Appeal held that AP Wireless (“APW”) were to be treated as a party to a Code agreement where they had been granted a concurrent lease of a telecoms site . A concurrent lease is a lease that is “slotted in” above an existing lease usually running at the same time as the existing lease. The decision provides welcome clarity for landowners who have granted concurrent leases and closes a potential gap in the legislation.


In this case, Vodafone, had a lease of a site at the Old Fire Station, Bingley, Yorkshire. In 2018, the landlord (formerly known as “Gencomp”) granted a concurrent lease to APW, the effect of which was that it became the landlord of, and was entitled to receive rents from, Vodafone. The reason for granting such an interest to APW is that they are a mobile phone mast site lease investment firm. Therefore, landlords of telecoms sites receive a lump sum payment in exchange for the right to receive future rent associated with the telecoms agreement.

The contractual term of Vodafone’s Code agreement had come to an end and it wanted to renew its lease under the Code. However, it was unclear what procedure it should follow and whether it should renew it with the freeholder, Gencomp, or with the tenant under the concurrent lease, APW.

First Instance Decision

The Upper Tribunal found that there was a gap in the legislation such that APW was not a party to the Code agreement and so was prevented from taking steps to bring it to an end.

The problem was that the Upper Tribunal found that as APW did not fall within the definitions with the relevant part of the Code it could not make use of Part 5 of the Code which relates to continuation, renewal and termination. However, Gencomp could not make use of this part of the Code either because, due to the concurrent lease, it did not have the right to possession and occupation and so could not confer them on Vodafone. Part 4 of the Code (relating to the power of the Tribunal to impose a Code agreement) could not fix this gap for a landowner but it did mean that the operator could make use of it to seek a new Code agreement.

This obviously caused an issue for landowners who would be unable to bring Code agreements to an end where a concurrent lease was in place. The Tribunal granted permission to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal.

Decision on Appeal

The Court of Appeal reversed the Upper Tribunal’s decision. It found that whilst APW would not be considered a successor in title to Gencomp it should be treated as a party to the Code agreement, entitling it to a right to terminate the Code agreement under Part 5. This was because the relevant paragraph of the Code containing the definition of who was a party to the Code agreement was not to be considered exhaustive. As a matter of property law, irrespective of the operation of the Code, the original Code agreement was binding on APW and it should therefore be regarded as a party to the agreement.


This decision provides a welcome solution to what was a potentially significant gap in the Code. It is especially important for landowners and tenants under concurrent leases who can now be reassured that they do have the power to terminate an existing Code agreement. This decision also builds on the guidance given by the Supreme Court in Compton Beauchamp in respect of the approach to be taken when interpreting of the Code. The Courts should consider how and why the regime was intended to work and not simply look at the legal language used.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2024

    Charlotte Ford


  • Record number of leading individuals for Charles Russell Speechlys in Chambers High-Net-Worth 2024

    Piers Master


  • Collateral Warranty and Third Party Rights: Everything You Need to Know

    Chris Marks


  • Supreme Court overturns Court of Appeal decision: Statutory adjudication will not apply to a typical collateral warranty

    Kevin Forsyth


  • IET’s new revision 7 of the Model Form of Contract (MF/1): What has changed?

    Melanie Tomlin


  • From Manchester to the Metaverse: How United’s Roblox Rollout Could Help Drive Fan Engagement

    Shennind Awat-Ranai


  • FCA announce new UK Listing Rules coming into force on 29 July 2024

    Jodie Dennis

    Quick Reads

  • New UK Listing Rules to be implemented 29 July 2024

    Victoria Younghusband


  • Darren Bailey and Frédéric Jeannin write for City AM on geopolitical risk and challenges posed to Paris by staging the Olympic Games

    Darren Bailey

    In the Press

  • What did the King’s Speech say about reform of leasehold and the private rented sector?

    Laura Bushaway

    Quick Reads

  • Inside Housing quotes James Walton on the potential financing impact of delays at the Building Safety Regulator

    James Walton

    In the Press

  • IFLR quotes Victoria Younghusband on new UK listing rules unveiled by the FCA

    Victoria Younghusband

    In the Press

  • Bloomberg quotes Sarah Jane Boon on plans announced in the King’s speech to press ahead with the tax hike on UK private school fees

    Sarah Jane Boon

    In the Press

  • CoStar quotes Claire Fallows and Ben Butterworth on some of the key real estate issues addressed in the King's Speech

    Claire Fallows

    In the Press

  • “We want prenup! We want prenup!” (Yeah!)

    Cara Fung

    Quick Reads

  • Charles Russell Speechlys reports domestic and international growth across all practice areas

    Simon Ridpath


  • Cyber Co-ordination 2024 - new MOU on co-operation between EBA, ESMA, EIOPA and ENISA

    Mark Bailey


  • The EU AI Act: A Beginner’s Guide for UK and International Businesses using AI

    Janine Regan


  • James Walton writes for the Evening Standard on whether the Government can expect a return on its new National Wealth Fund

    James Walton

    In the Press

  • ADGM Court holds that NMC can bring fraudulent and wrongful trading claims retroactively

    Nicola Jackson

    Quick Reads

Back to top