EE Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited
Decision date: 29 July 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 216 (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 concerned two remaining terms of a renewed Code lease at Vache Farm: whether the landlord could have an early redevelopment break and the correct annual consideration under paragraph 24 applying the no‑network assumption. The Tribunal held the landlord may terminate on giving not less than 18 months' notice expiring on the fifth or any subsequent anniversary if it intends to redevelop and cannot reasonably do so while the lease continues, rejected broader grounds tied to paragraph 21, and fixed the annual consideration at £1,750. An obscure additional indemnity in the superior lease was omitted as unnecessary.
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
A landlord redevelopment break can be contractually provided under the Code, but must be limited to protect operator stability: it should be subject to a reasonable minimum period before it becomes exercisable (here, from the fifth anniversary) and to a requirement that the landlord demonstrate at a Tribunal hearing that redevelopment cannot reasonably be achieved while the lease continues; other broadly framed exit rights (including ones keyed to paragraph 21) are inappropriate.
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 observed that the paragraph 24 no‑network assumption concerns the permitted use (purpose) rather than the physical condition of the land and that realistic availability of services at the site boundary may be assumed. It also noted that non‑telecommunications transactional comparables can inform the no‑network value as a corrective to earlier benchmarks but must be adjusted to remove any special value attributable to actual telecom use and to reflect site burdens; the Tribunal will avoid creating unnecessary dispute by declining broadly framed contractual exit rights.