AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v EE Ltd & Anor (Electronic Communications Code - Respondents in occupation of telecommunications site) [2026] UKUT 45 (LC) (09 February 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) heard an appeal from a First-tier Tribunal decision about whether mobile-network operators EE and Hutchison 3G could seek a new agreement under the Electronic Communications Code for a rooftop telecommunications site. The dispute turned on whether their occupation after the original lease expired was a tenancy at will or an implied periodic tenancy, and whether the 2023 notice and reference procedure were valid.

Key points

• Parties: AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd appealed against EE Ltd and Hutchison 3G UK Ltd concerning a rooftop site at Swan Office Centre, Birmingham.
• Core issue: whether the respondents occupied the site under a tenancy at will or an implied periodic tenancy after the 2010 lease expired on 28 February 2015.
• Code issue: the respondents served a 2023 notice under paragraphs 20(2) and 27(1) of Part 4 of the Electronic Communications Code and sought a new code agreement by reference to the Upper Tribunal.
• Additional issues: whether, if there was a periodic tenancy, the respondents were barred from seeking a new code agreement unless they first terminated that tenancy at common law.
• Procedural issue: whether the notice had to include the alternative dispute resolution information in paragraph 20(2A) of the Code.
• No sanctions/export-control angle appears on the face of the source text; the case is about telecoms site occupation and Code procedure.

Why it matters

The decision is relevant to telecoms infrastructure control because it affects when operators can use the Code to secure rights over occupied sites rather than relying on ordinary landlord-tenant routes. For sanctions or national security audiences, the main significance is indirect: it shows how access rights over communications sites can turn on technical possession and notice rules, which can affect resilience and continuity of network infrastructure.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, parties dealing with telecoms sites need to characterize post-lease occupation carefully, because tenancy status determines whether Code rights can be pursued and what procedural steps are required. The case also highlights that notice-content arguments, including whether ADR wording is mandatory, can be decisive jurisdictional objections in Code references.