Clocktower Case: A Landmark Win for Phone Mast Landowners

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has handed down an important decision for phone mast landlords and site providers: EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v Clocktower Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 163 (LC).

The case was instigated and advised by Matt Restall of The Phone Mast Advice Company for the landowner. Matt identified the legal issue and recommended specialist solicitors Waldrons to the client, who instructed David Stockill of counsel. The team took the matter from the First-tier Tribunal into the Upper Tribunal, securing a result that is likely to be closely studied across the telecoms property market.

Quick Take

For landowners, the practical importance of Clocktower is straightforward:

• operators cannot automatically sidestep a protected 1954 Act lease by switching to the Code;
• rights over a mast structure may still amount to easements capable of supporting 1954 Act protection; and
• serving the wrong renewal route can be fatal.

At its heart, the decision deals with a recurring question:

Can telecoms operators bypass the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and use the Electronic Communications Code to obtain a new agreement on more favourable Code terms?

In this case, the answer was no.

The Background

Clocktower Investments owns a clocktower site in Grays, Essex, which hosts telecoms apparatus for several operators.

In 2004, a lease was granted to Orange, later assigned to EE and Hutchison 3G. The lease demised a small “L-shaped” parcel of land at the base of the tower, intended to house a radio base station building. It also granted rights to install antennae and other equipment on the clocktower itself.

The radio base station was never built. The operators used the ancillary rights by fixing equipment to the tower and placing cabinets at its base, but they did not physically occupy the demised land in the way originally contemplated.

When the lease expired in 2022, the operators sought to avoid renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and instead obtain fresh rights under Part 5 of the Electronic Communications Code. For operators, Code agreements can be attractive because they often produce lower rents and more favourable statutory terms.

The landowner resisted that approach.

What the Tribunal Decided

Deputy Chamber President Martin Rodger KC dismissed the operators’ appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s strike-out of the Code reference.

The key findings were:

• the rights to install apparatus on the clocktower were easements, not merely contractual licences;
• following Pointon York Group plc v Poulton, easements can amount to “premises” capable of being “occupied” for the purposes of section 23(1) of the 1954 Act;
• the demised land was the dominant tenement and was properly accommodated by the rights granted over the clocktower;
• it did not matter that the radio base station was never built; and
• the operators had not ousted the landowner from the servient land to such a degree that the rights could not operate as easements.

The result is significant: the lease remained protected by Part II of the 1954 Act, and the operators could not use the Code to force a new agreement.

They must proceed under the 1954 Act renewal route, or not at all.

Why This Matters for Landowners

This is a practical decision with real commercial consequences.

For years, many site providers have been under pressure from operators seeking to move legacy arrangements onto modern Code terms. The Code valuation regime can reduce rents sharply because it strips out much of the telecoms network value from the assessment.

That is why this decision matters commercially, not just academically.

The Clocktower decision confirms that the Code has not swept away ordinary property law. Where a properly drafted lease grants rights that amount to easements, and the lease falls within the 1954 Act, operators cannot simply ignore that statutory protection and start again under the Code.

For landowners, that can mean:

• a stronger negotiating position;
• open-market 1954 Act renewal principles rather than discounted Code valuation assumptions;
• more procedural control through the section 25 and section 26 timetable;
• better protection against speculative Code applications; and
• stronger grounds to challenge operators who serve the wrong type of notice.

Matt Restall's View

“This decision is a long-overdue dose of common sense for landowners. For years, operators have leaned on the Code to drive rents down and rewrite long-standing arrangements on terms that suit them. What this case confirms is that where a landowner has granted a properly drafted lease with ancillary rights, the 1954 Act still bites — even where the operator has never set foot on the demised land in a physical sense. We took this case on because we believed the legal position had been misread, and the Tribunal has now confirmed that view.”

— Matt Restall, The Phone Mast Advice Company

The Section 26 Notice Issue

The decision is especially important where operators or landowners are considering section 26 notices.

Where ancillary rights qualify as easements and are being exercised, renewal may need to proceed under the 1954 Act rather than through a paragraph 33 Code notice. Serving the wrong notice can create serious procedural problems, including strike-out, delay and wasted costs.

The case also highlights a difficult “holding” issue. A tenancy may continue under section 24 of the 1954 Act even where the operator is occupying only rights, rather than a conventional piece of physical land. But on renewal, section 32 refers to the new tenancy being granted of “the holding”. Where there is no corporeal land actually occupied, there may be a real question about what, if anything, can be renewed.

The Tribunal noted that issue but did not need to decide it fully.

Practical Implications for Operators

For operators, this decision narrows one possible route out of older protected leases.

In practical terms, operators may now need to:

• audit legacy mast leases more carefully;
• identify whether rights are easements or licences;
• consider whether the 1954 Act applies before serving Code notices;
• accept that some renewals must proceed on 1954 Act terms; and
• factor in the risk of failed Code references where the lease structure has been misunderstood.

It may also reduce operator valuation leverage where the Code’s “no-network” assumptions are unavailable.

Practical Advantages for Landowners

For landowners and site providers, the judgment provides a useful framework for reviewing existing agreements.

A landowner receiving a Code notice or section 26 request should check:

• what land is actually demised;
• whether the mast rights are drafted as easements;
• whether the rights accommodate a dominant tenement;
• whether the operator is relying on historic ancillary rights;
• whether the 1954 Act applies; and
• whether the notice served by the operator is procedurally correct.

The answer will depend on the precise drafting and facts of each site. But the decision gives landowners stronger grounds to challenge vague, overreaching or wrongly framed renewal claims.

Wider Market Impact

The case is likely to be cited in future telecoms lease disputes and negotiations.

It is a reminder that the Electronic Communications Code is powerful, but it does not operate in isolation. The 1954 Act, easements, lease drafting and ordinary property law still matter.

For site providers who have been told that they have no option but to accept a Code agreement on lower terms, Clocktower is an important decision to review.

Read the Judgment

The Upper Tribunal judgment is EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v Clocktower Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 163 (LC).

A related First-tier Tribunal decision is available on GOV.UK under case reference LC-2024-000365: EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v Clocktower Investment Limited.

If you are checking the Upper Tribunal authority directly, search the National Archives Find Case Law service by citation or by party name.

How We Can Help

If you are a landowner or site provider with a phone mast lease approaching expiry, or you have received a Code notice, section 25 notice or section 26 request, The Phone Mast Advice Company can review your position and advise on the practical options.

We regularly advise UK landowners on telecoms lease renewals, rent reviews, Code notices and mast lease strategy.

If an operator is trying to push a legacy arrangement onto Code terms, getting the lease wording and occupation analysis right can make a material difference to the outcome.

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.