Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited v On Tower UK Limited
Decision date: 27 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 89 (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 whether Icon Tower could resist imposition of a new statutory code agreement under paragraph 21(5) by showing an intention to redevelop land presently occupied by On Tower's mast. The First‑tier Tribunal found Icon lacked the requisite firm, unconditional intention to redevelop because its plan depended on mobile network operators migrating to a new mast and there was no reasonable prospect of that happening; the appeal challenges that factual finding and related legal characterisations (including whether replacing a mast is "redevelopment"). The Upper Tribunal was asked to determine the proper legal test for para 21(5) and whether the FTT was entitled to its findings.
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
From the FTT’s preliminary decision as summarised in the notes, paragraph 21(5) should be approached similarly to s.30(1)(f) of the 1954 Act: intention is assessed as at the hearing date and requires a firm, settled and unconditional intention to redevelop, coupled with an objective reasonable prospect of implementing the redevelopment by the landowner’s own volition (so it would proceed even if the operator remained or vacated).
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‑style observations that a redevelopment devised solely to defeat acquisition of code rights, and which would not be pursued but for the acquisition application, will not satisfy para 21(5). It is also noted (without definitive resolution) that whether taking down one mast and erecting another amounts to "redevelopment" under para 21(5) is contestable and may need further analysis.