EE Limited & Anor v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Wandsworth
Decision date: 7 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 299 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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: high
This appeal concerned mobile operators who remained in occupation after an old contracted-out lease expired and who served Code paragraph 20/27 notices and brought a Part 4 reference to the FTT. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal on three issues, holding the occupiers had held over as tenants at will (not periodic tenants), that two identical paragraph 20 notices served together by joint occupiers constituted a valid joint notice, and that the notices complied with the Ofcom-prescribed form despite two inadvertent omissions. The FTT’s jurisdiction to hear the reference was upheld and the reference will proceed.
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: high
Where, after lease expiry, the factual matrix objectively supports it, the court may find occupation to be by tenants at will rather than an unwritten periodic tenancy; in this case the Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT’s finding of a periodic tenancy and held the occupiers held over as tenants at will. The Tribunal further held that two joint occupiers may validly serve identical paragraph 20 notices together (a single draft agreement annexed) and that minor inadvertent omissions in a prescribed Ofcom form do not invalidate the notice where the omitted material is otherwise present in the form.
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 Tribunal (obiter) indicated that an operator on an unwritten periodic tenancy protected by the 1954 Act may, in principle, apply under Part 4 to have a Code agreement imposed, and commented that the reasoning in Cornerstone does not authoritatively decide the position of unwritten periodic tenants. It also noted that small omissions in prescribed forms may be de minimis depending on whether the required information is nonetheless included elsewhere.