EE Limited & Anor v Clocktower Investments Limited
Decision date: 30 April 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 163 (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 whether rights granted in a lease to install and access telecoms apparatus on a landlord's clocktower amounted to "premises which are occupied by the tenant" for s.23(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The First-tier Tribunal held those rights were incorporeal hereditaments capable of occupation and thus the lease was a protected tenancy under Part II; the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld that conclusion, with the result that Part 5 of the Electronic Communications Code was excluded by the transitional provision. The relevant date for the s.23(1) assessment was the lease expiry, 31 May 2022.
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: low
The decision indicates that incorporeal proprietary rights to place and access equipment on a neighbouring structure can constitute "premises" capable of being occupied by a tenant for business purposes and thus form part of the property comprised in a tenancy for the purposes of s.23(1) of the 1954 Act, so bringing the tenancy within Part II where such rights are in use at the relevant date.
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 discussed that a useful distinction remains between proprietary incorporeal rights and purely contractual or licence-based rights (for example, advertising licences) when deciding whether a right can be treated as premises under s.23(1). It also noted that plans, definitions in the lease and the parties' intentions about evolving apparatus are factually relevant but do not determinatively change the legal characterisation of the rights.