On Tower UK Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited
Decision date: 7 July 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 245 (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 a 2016 agreement granting passive mast rights at the Vulcan Arms was a "Code agreement" under the 2003 Electronic Communications Code given that Ofcom's 2005 direction referenced provision of an "electronic communications network". The Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's ultimate conclusion that the 2016 agreement was not a Code agreement, holding that under the 2003 Code an "electronic communications network" requires a transmission system (and apparatus used with it) and does not cover mere unconnected passive mast sites, and that the 2005 direction did not authorise Code rights for passive WIP infrastructure. The appeal succeeded on certain procedural/temporal grounds but failed on the core construction point, leaving the Vulcan Arms agreement non-statutory and not renewable under Part 5.
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
The binding ratio is that under the 2003 Code the defined term "electronic communications network" requires a transmission system together with apparatus used in association with it, so passive mast sites alone (a "network of sites") do not fall within that definition; accordingly an Ofcom direction limited to provision of an "electronic communications network" does not, without different wording, authorise Code rights for passive infrastructure providers prior to any change in the direction or statutory definition.
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 judgment observes (obiter) that the Law Commission's reports and industry practice may assist in understanding the reforming mischief but cannot override the plain statutory wording, and that Ofcom's Explanatory Statements reflect regulatory views but do not change statutory construction.