AP Wireless II (UK) Limited v EE Limited & Anor
Decision date: 9 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 45 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This appeal concerns whether EE and Hutchison's post-2015 occupation of a rooftop telecommunications site was a tenancy at will or an implied periodic tenancy, and whether they validly served a 2023 Part 4 Electronic Communications Code notice seeking imposition of a new code agreement. The First-tier Tribunal held the occupiers were tenants at will, that a tenancy at will did not prevent a Part 4 application, and that the 2023 Notice was valid to permit a Reference. The Appellant (reversioner) was granted permission to appeal those findings to the Upper Tribunal; the Respondents advanced alternative jurisdictional grounds.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The clear ratio supported by the notes is that occupation as a tenancy at will does not, of itself, preclude an application under Part 4 of the Electronic Communications Code for imposition of a code agreement, and that the 2023 Notice as served met the statutory prescription to enable a Reference under paragraph 20(3).
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The notes record obiter material that the parties’ 2018 dealings (notices and counter-notices) are relevant contextual evidence when assessing post-lease occupation status, and a concession that no periodic tenancy could have arisen after the Appellant’s acquisition of the reversionary lease on 8 March 2024.