Compton Beauchamp: What the Supreme Court Phone Mast Case Means for Landowners

I acted as surveyor for the landowner, Compton Beauchamp Estates Limited, and instigated and oversaw this case on their behalf. It ran for more than three years through three different courts — the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court — and is now one of the leading authorities on the new Electronic Communications Code.

The Phone Mast Advice Company acts only for landowners. We do not act for operators. That focus is what allowed me to take this case forward without compromise, and it is the same approach I have brought to every landowner instruction since.

Background to the Case

My client owned a field at Galleyherns Farm. Vodafone Limited had installed a telecommunications mast on the edge of that field under a fixed-term contracted-out lease, which had subsequently expired. Telefónica UK Limited shared use of the mast under arrangements with Vodafone.

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited (CTIL) is the joint venture company through which Vodafone and Telefónica hold and manage their shared mast portfolio. CTIL wanted to obtain Code rights over the site in its own name. Rather than approach Vodafone, whose lease had expired and who was still on site, CTIL served notice on the landowner under paragraph 20 of the new Electronic Communications Code, asking the Tribunal to impose Code rights against my client.

I took the view that this was the wrong target. The landowner was the freeholder, but it was not the “occupier” of the site — Vodafone was. Paragraph 9 of the Code is explicit that Code rights may only be conferred by “the occupier of the land”. On that basis I instigated proceedings to challenge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to impose rights against the landowner, and instructed the legal team that took the case forward.

Stage 1: The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)

The Upper Tribunal, before Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President, agreed with us.

The Tribunal held that, on the facts, Vodafone was in occupation of the site and the landowner was not. Because paragraph 9 only permits Code rights to be conferred by the occupier, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to impose rights against the landowner. CTIL’s reference was struck out.

That was the right answer in our view, and it was the first time the Tribunal had grappled in detail with the meaning of “occupier” under the new Code.

Stage 2: The Court of Appeal

CTIL appealed. In Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1755, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s decision.

The Court went further than the Tribunal had needed to, and held that an operator with apparatus already installed on a site is itself the occupier of that site for the purposes of paragraph 9. The practical consequence of that reasoning was significant: an operator could not apply for new Code rights over land where it already had equipment, because it could not contract with itself.

That part of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning caused real concern across the industry. It was perceived to create a barrier to operators upgrading or expanding their networks on existing sites. CTIL therefore sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Stage 3: The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard the Compton Beauchamp appeal alongside two other cases raising related issues — Cornerstone v Ashloch and On Tower UK Ltd v AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd. Judgment was handed down on 22 June 2022 as Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd [2022] UKSC 18.

Lady Rose, giving the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, took a different conceptual approach to the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the word “occupier” in paragraph 9 has no fixed meaning and takes its content from the context in which it appears. Looking at the Code as a whole, the Court held that an operator already in occupation by reason of its own apparatus is not, for the purposes of paragraph 9, to be treated as the “occupier” when it seeks new Code rights. The Court of Appeal’s wider reasoning on this point was overturned.

Despite that, CTIL’s appeal was nonetheless dismissed. The reason was simple and turned on the facts: Vodafone, not CTIL, was in occupation of the site. CTIL had served its paragraph 20 notice on the landowner rather than on Vodafone. The landowner was therefore not the right party to confer Code rights, and the Tribunal had been right to strike the reference out.

As the Supreme Court put it, the appeal failed because it was Vodafone which was in occupation of the site — not the landowner to which CTIL had applied for the rights.

In the conjoined appeal, the Supreme Court also confirmed that an operator with a tenancy protected by Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 cannot use Part 4 of the Code to renew its rights. Renewal must be pursued under the 1954 Act.

That part of the decision, the Ashloch point, is now of central importance to any operator with a 1954 Act protected lease, and dovetails directly with the more recent decision in EE & Hutchison 3G v Clocktower Investments [2026] UKUT 163 (LC) — another case I instigated and oversaw on behalf of a landowner client.

Matt Restall's View

“Compton Beauchamp was a hard-fought case and a vindication of the position I took at the start: an operator cannot impose Code rights on a landowner who is not the occupier of the land. We won at the Upper Tribunal, we won at the Court of Appeal, and although the Supreme Court took a different conceptual route on the broader ‘occupier’ question, our case was upheld on its facts and the appeal was dismissed. For landowners, the practical headline is unchanged: if your land is occupied by an operator, that is the party the new operator must approach — not you.”

— Matt Restall, The Phone Mast Advice Company

Implications for Landowners

Defending Against Misdirected Paragraph 20 Notices

Where a landowner receives a Code notice in respect of a site that is actually occupied by an operator, the notice is liable to be struck out. The Supreme Court confirmed this on the facts of our case.

Landowners should not assume they have to engage with such notices on their merits.

Identifying the Correct Counterparty

The decision underlines that the identity of the “occupier” is fact-sensitive. Landowners with multiple operators on a single site, or shared mast arrangements, should take advice early to identify who is in occupation as a matter of fact.

1954 Act Protection Still Matters

The Ashloch element of the decision confirmed that operators with 1954 Act protected leases cannot side-step into the Code on renewal.

That has direct valuation consequences. 1954 Act renewals are valued on open-market principles, not the Code’s discounted “no scheme” basis.

Strategic Leverage

Landowners with operators in occupation on legacy or expired agreements have a stronger negotiating position than is sometimes assumed. The Code is not a one-way street.

Implications for Operators

Serve the Right Party

Operators must serve their paragraph 20 notice on the actual occupier of the land. Serving on the freeholder or other non-occupier risks strike-out, wasted costs and significant delay — exactly what happened in our case.

Operators in Occupation Can Seek New Rights

The Supreme Court’s overturning of the Court of Appeal’s wider reasoning means that an operator with apparatus already on site is not barred from seeking additional Code rights from the landowner under Part 4. That removed an unworkable barrier the Court of Appeal had created, and is the only major “win” operators took from this litigation.

1954 Act Tenants Must Renew Under the 1954 Act

Operators with subsisting 1954 Act protected tenancies cannot use the Code to renew their rights. They must use the 1954 Act renewal procedure, with the higher rents and tighter procedural framework that brings.

Modification of Existing Rights Mid-Term Is Limited

The Supreme Court confirmed that an operator already party to a Code agreement can only apply to the Tribunal to modify the terms of existing rights once Part 5 becomes available — reflecting the principle that parties should be held to their bargains. In-term modification by Tribunal order is not generally available.

Why the Case Still Matters

Compton Beauchamp is now cited in almost every significant Code case. It established the framework within which the “occupier” question is decided, defined the limits of paragraph 20, and confirmed that 1954 Act protected leases must be renewed under the 1954 Act.

Together with the more recent Upper Tribunal decision in Clocktower Investments — another case I instigated and oversaw for the landowner — it forms a coherent line of authority that has materially redrawn the balance between landowners and telecoms operators.

It also illustrates a point I make to landowner clients regularly: the Code is complex, the case law is moving quickly, and the procedural steps matter. Getting the right party, the right notice and the right statutory route is the difference between a workable agreement and a strike-out.

Read the Judgments

• Court of Appeal: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1755.
• Supreme Court: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd [2022] UKSC 18 — published by the UK Supreme Court.

How We Can Help

The Phone Mast Advice Company acts exclusively for landowners and site providers. We do not act for operators, and we have no conflicts of interest with the operator side.

If you are a landowner dealing with a Code notice, an operator already on site, or a 1954 Act renewal, please get in touch. Compton Beauchamp and Clocktower were both cases I instigated and oversaw on behalf of landowner clients, and I would be glad to review your position and advise on next steps.

Related Services

• Phone Mast Lease Renewals
• Phone Mast Rent Reviews
• Free Lease Check
• Contact The Phone Mast Advice Company

Call us on 01691 791543 or contact us online for a free initial review.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Landowners should take specialist advice on their own agreement, lease wording and circumstances.