Gravesham Borough Council v On Tower UK Limited
Decision date: 4 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 151 (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 arose after the First-tier Tribunal refused to strike out On Tower’s Part 4 (Code) reference made after its renewal claim under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 failed procedurally. The Upper Tribunal held that an operator who has exhausted or failed in renewal proceedings under the 1954 Act may not thereafter pursue an imposed agreement under Part 4 of the Electronic Communications Code, and alternatively that On Tower’s paragraph 20/27 notice was invalid while its tenancy was continued by the 1954 Act. The Council’s appeal was allowed and the Part 4 reference was struck out.
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
Where an operator has a right of renewal under the 1954 Act (including transitional arrangements), Parliament intended the operator to pursue that route and not to obtain a second bite at the issue by bringing a subsequent Part 4 Code application after failing in the 1954 Act; accordingly the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a Part 4 reference. Also, a paragraph 20/27 Code notice seeking temporary or permanent rights is invalid if served while the operator’s tenancy is being continued under the 1954 Act because the site provider lacks a present right to require removal.
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 UT observed that paragraph 40(8) (which postpones removal orders while a paragraph 20 application is pending) does not itself create a freestanding jurisdiction to bring Part 4 applications but merely regulates sequencing. The tribunal also indicated that an application under Part 4 made after procedural dismissal of a Part 2 claim would not inevitably be an abuse of process, particularly where the initial failure was procedural rather than on the merits.